The effect of matching on perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization discontents: Empirical evidence from UK SMEs

Abstract

In this study we examine the effect of matching, a comprehensive networking concept, on the perceived export barriers and export performance of small exporting firms. We introduce matching as a moderating variable affecting the link of perceived internal/external export barriers to export performance. Using a sample of 106 UK-based exporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs), we find that matching alleviates the negative impact of perceived internal export barriers on export performance. Furthermore, the empirical results show that export experience and export commitment reduce managers' perceived internal and external export barriers. The study shows that matching, as a networking-tool at multiple levels, can help to overcome export barriers, thus providing a mechanism to offset challenges opened up through nationalistic policies.

Full text

Running head: MATCHING 1
The effect of matching on perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization
discontents: Empirical evidence from UK SMEs
This is a pre-print / an Author’s Original Manuscript (AAM) of an article published by
Elsevier in International Business Review. Please cite the published article:
Sinkovics, Rudolf R., Yusuf Kurt, and Noemi Sinkovics (2018), "The effect of matching on
perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization discontents: Empirical
evidence from UK SMEs," International Business Review, 27(5), 1065-1079.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.007
Rudolf R. Sinkovics
The University of Manchester, Alliance Manchester Business School
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK.
Rudolf.Sinkovics@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/rudolf.sinkovics
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4471-5054
and
Lappeenranta University of Technology
Skinnarilankatu 34, PL 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
and
Temple University, Fox School of Business, Department of Strategic Management
Alter Hall, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
Yusuf Kurt
The University of Manchester, Alliance Manchester Business School
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK.
Yusuf.Kurt@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/yusuf.kurt.html
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5011-6322
Noemi Sinkovics
The University of Manchester, Alliance Manchester Business School
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK.
Noemi.Sinkovics@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/Noemi.Sinkovics.html
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5143-6870
and
Temple University, Fox School of Business, Department of Strategic Management
Alter Hall, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

MATCHING 2
Abstract
In this study we examine the effect of matching, a comprehensive networking concept, on the
perceived export barriers and export performance of small exporting firms. We introduce
matching as a moderating variable affecting the link of perceived internal/external export barriers
to export performance. Using a sample of 106 UK-based exporting small and medium enterprises
(SMEs), we find that matching alleviates the negative impact of perceived internal export
barriers on export performance. Furthermore, the empirical results show that export experience
and export commitment reduce managers' perceived internal and external export barriers. The
study shows that matching, as a networking-tool at multiple levels, can help to overcome export
barriers, thus providing a mechanism to offset challenges opened up through nationalistic
policies.
Keywords
Internationalization; Matching; export barriers; export commitment; export performance; SMEs;
anti-globalization.
Author note
Correspondence should be addressed to Rudolf Sinkovics, The University of Manchester,
Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, United
Kingdom. Email: Rudolf.Sinkovics@manchester.ac.uk, Web:
www.manchester.ac.uk/research/rudolf.sinkovics
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge insightful comments received from Mo Yamin, S. Tamer Cavusgil
and Ram Mudambi during seminars at The University of Manchester, Alliance Manchester
Business School, UK and Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.
Biographic notes
Yusuf Kurt (PhD, The University of Manchester) is Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in International
Business and Management at Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of
Manchester. His current research interests include spirituality, social network analysis,
internationalization, and emerging markets. His work has been published in International
Marketing Review, European Management Journal and as chapter contributions. Email:
Yusuf.Kurt@manchester.ac.uk

MATCHING 3
Noemi Sinkovics (PhD, University of Manchester) is Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in
International Business and Management at Alliance Manchester Business School, U.K and
Visiting Scholar at Fox School of Business, Temple University. Her research focuses on
International Entrepreneurship, ICT, and Economic Development issues. She has published in
journals such as International Business Review, International Marketing Review, Journal of
Business Research, Critical Perspectives on International Business, and European Journal of
International Management. Email: Noemi.Sinkovics@manchester.ac.uk.
Rudolf R. Sinkovics (PhD, WU Vienna), is Professor of International Business at The
University of Manchester, UK, Visiting Professor at Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Finland and Visiting Scholar at Fox School of Business, Temple University. He has published on
inter-organizational governance, the role of ICT in firm internationalization, and currently works
on rising powers, and responsible business. Email: Rudolf.Sinkovics@manchester.ac.uk

Page 1 of 43
The effect of matching on perceived export barriers and
performance in an era of globalization discontents:
Empirical evidence from UK SMEs
Abstract
In this study we examine the effect of matching, a comprehensive networking concept, on
the perceived export barriers and export performance of small exporting firms. We introduce
matching as a moderating variable affecting the link of perceived internal/external export barriers
to export performance. Using a sample of 106 UK-based exporting small and medium enterprises
(SMEs), we find that matching alleviates the negative impact of perceived internal export barriers
on export performance. Furthermore, the empirical results show that export experience and
export commitment reduce managers' perceived internal and external export barriers. The study
shows that matching, as a networking-tool at multiple levels, can help to overcome export
barriers, thus providing a mechanism to offset challenges opened up through nationalistic
policies.
Keywords: Matching; export barriers; export commitment; export performance; SMEs; anti-
globalization.
1 Introduction
Faced with compound uncertainties in an era of rising nationalistic and protectionist
policies and backlashes against globalization (e.g. Brexit in the UK and Trump’s ‘America first’
approach to governance in the US), firms, particularly in their cross-border operations, are
prompted to learn about and develop managerial strategies of navigating economic nationalism.
Exporting firms have long enjoyed the incentives of the globalization era, accompanied by trade
deals, international organizations, economic integration, and close relationships between
countries, all of which have significantly facilitated the flow of goods, services, and capital across
borders. The vibrant export activities across countries have significantly fostered welfare

Page 2 of 43
creation, socio-economic development, and job creation. However, the recent protectionist
sentiments, encapsulated in ‘anti-globalism
1
’ or ‘globalization discontents’ (Stiglitz, 2018), point
at structural changes, and uncertainties in the international political-economic environment, that
are likely to have serious effects on personal and organizational connectivity with partners (Cano-
Kollmann, Hannigan, & Mudambi, 2017). Institutional change, which was once a driver of
globalization in the shape of pro-market reforms, has reversed, with governments imposing
protectionist measures and weakening institutions such as the World Trade Organization
(Cuervo-Cazurrra, Mudambi, & Pedersen, 2017; Kobrin, 2017). Barrier-free relationships
between countries and societies are likely to diminish (Helleiner & Pickel, 2005) and in order to
offset these, firms will have to move towards the development of relationships at multiple levels
with different actors.
Network-based relationships are considered to be an effective way of navigating through
uncertainties inherent in international operations, particularly during institutional transition
periods (Meyer, 2001; Peng & Zhou, 2005; Zhou, Wei-ping, & Xueming, 2007). Hence, we
examine the matching concept, introduced by Ghauri and Holstius (1996) to refer to a multitude
of networking activities that firms conduct in order to interact with different actors at various
levels, including customers, suppliers, local government, and trade unions, in developing cross-
border relationships (Elg, 2008; Elg, Ghauri, & Tarnovskaya, 2008; Ghauri & Holstius, 1996).
Compared with traditional networking relationships, which mainly focus on micro business
relationships or on just one level of network relationships, matching extends to networks at the
micro and macro levels. Our argument is that the simultaneous management of multiple levels of
network relationships will support contemporary firms in overcoming internationalization
barriers and foster export performance, specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) in an era of globalization discontents.
This paper develops a conceptual model in which matching is hypothesized as a
moderating variable, i.e. shapes the relationship between perceived internal and external export
barriers and export performance. Exporting experience, export commitment, and perceived export
1
Globalism refers to “the idea that, through a series of mechanisms, the world has become more closely
interconnected, and by implication that it will continue to become more closely interconnected” (Dickson, 2013).
It sees the world as characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances (Keohane &
Nye, 2000; Nye, 2002). In contrast, globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism and
focuses on the forces and dynamism of these changes (Nye, 2002).

Page 3 of 43
barriers are introduced as independent variables and export performance as the dependent. While
there is a plethora of prior work that examines direct impacts on export performance, the role of
moderators is regarded to be underrepresented (Rose & Shoham, 2002; Sousa, Martínez-López,
& Coelho, 2008). A study by Sousa et al. (2008, p. 366), providing a comprehensive review of
the export performance literature, also suggests that “future studies should focus not solely on the
main effects of independent variables on export performance, but also on whether the relationship
between the independent and dependent variable varies as a function of the value of a third
variable” and deliberately focus on moderating effects.
This paper contributes to the literature as follows. Firstly, it examines the moderating
effect of matching on the relationships between perceived export barriers and export
performance. Whereas most of the previous work is limited to micro-level business networks and
their direct impact on firms’ exporting behaviors, we introduce matching to delineate to what
extent the moderating impact of networking activities at micro and macro levels can alleviate
perceived export barriers and thus foster export performance. Secondly, this paper systematically
integrates perceived internal and external export barriers and investigates their impact on export
performance, whereas previous empirical evidence on that integration has been limited. This
provides a more nuanced understanding of the nature and type of barriers that SMEs encounter.
2 Theoretical background and conceptual framework
2.1 Exporting and network-based SME internationalization
Exporting is seen as a baseline cross-border activity, particularly useful for SMEs, as their
organizational structure, size and management system puts pressure on their ability to devote
resources towards internationalization and connecting with international markets (Chetty &
Blankenburg Holm, 2000; Navarro, Acedo, Robson, Ruzo, & Losada, 2010a; Uner, Kocak,
Cavusgil, & Cavusgil, 2013). It offers a fast, cost-effective, and risk-reducing approach to
internationalization, combined with high flexibility (Golovko & Valentini, 2011; Lu & Beamish,
2006). The benefits associated with exports are not restricted to firms, as countries also gain
significantly from them (Pinho & Martins, 2010). Exporting plays a vital role in promoting socio-
economic development, and contributes to countries’ GDP, economic growth, employment, and
welfare creation (Pinho & Martins, 2010). For instance, it is an important contributor to GDP in
the UK, the EU, and OECD countries. Exports of goods and services as ratios of GDP are 28.1%

Page 4 of 43
for the UK, 43% for the EU and 28.4% for OECD countries (OECD, 2016). Exporting is also an
important driver of job creation. As indicated in the 2016 European Commission report, one in
seven jobs in the EU was either directly or indirectly supported by exports to the rest of the world
(Rueda-Cantuche & Sousa, 2016). The number of jobs supported by extra-EU exports increased
by around three million between 2000 and 2007 (Sousa, Rueda-Cantouche, Arto, & Andreoni,
2012). These significant contributions and attractive benefits of exporting activities, for firms,
countries, and societies, could be eroded by the onset of an anti-globalization era that is likely to
turn interconnected markets into isolated islands. Hence, deepening our understanding of export
barriers and networking strategies for overcoming them is becoming particularly crucial.
Within the international business (IB) and international entrepreneurship (IE) literatures,
the network model of firm internationalization has received strong interest (Coviello, 2006;
Ghauri, Lutz, & Tesfom, 2003; Kurt & Yamin, 2016; Loane & Bell, 2006; Musteen, Francis, &
Datta, 2010; Zhou et al., 2007). Whereas traditional internationalization theories mostly employ a
firm-centric focus (i.e., Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), its later theorizations have extensively
applied relational approaches and understand internationalization as a dynamic process through
which firms are engaged in a diverse range of network relationships (Ellis, 2000; Johanson &
Vahlne, 2003, 2009; Yamin & Kurt, 2018). A well-established body of the literature on SMEs
and rapidly internationalizing entrepreneurial firms (i.e. born-globals or international new
ventures) has empirically demonstrated the relation between network propensity and firms’
internationalization performance by focusing on firms’ business, social, and also macro-level
political/institutional networks (Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Coviello, 2006; Kiss & Danis, 2010;
Li & Zhang, 2007; Manolova, Manev, & Gyoshev, 2010; Sharma & Blomstermo, 2003; Zhang,
Ma, Wang, Li, & Huo, 2016; Zhou et al., 2007). The rise and success of rapidly internationalizing
entrepreneurial SMEs has been thought to be facilitated by the contemporary global business
environment and widening multi-country networks comprising different actors (Cavusgil &
Knight, 2015).
Moreover, a stream of research in the IB and IE literatures has focused on macro-level
networks as an important component of non-market strategy in IB activities. This body of
research has mainly focused on the value of political embeddedness, with reference to political
actors and institutions, for organizational performance (Frynas, Mellahi, & Pigman, 2006; Sun,
Mellahi, & Thun, 2010; Sun, Mellahi, & Wright, 2012). From a non-market strategy perspective,

Page 5 of 43
network ties are seen as boundary-spanning personal and institutional linkages between firm and
government agents, which play a crucial role in determining performance outcomes and IB
success (Doh, Lawton, & Rajwani, 2012; Sun et al., 2012). Being embedded in macro-level
political networks of home and host countries is considered an effective means of capturing non-
market and political resources that create and sustain competitive advantages in cross-border
business activities (Hillman, Keim, & Schuler, 2004; Peng & Luo, 2000). Despite their separate
and narrow focus on either the micro or the macro level of network relationships, one key
overarching argument of these research streams has been that networks are one fundamental
determinant of firms’ success or failure in IB activities, particularly in the contexts of small and
entrepreneurial firms.
However, existing research on the networks of small and entrepreneurial firms has been
unable to grasp a holistic picture of the network dynamics, as it has mostly adopted a micro
perspective, with an extensive focus on inter-firm and business-level relationships. Scholars have
also highlighted that this body of research has underemphasized the importance of network
relationships with socio-political and non-business actors in non-market environments (Elg et al.,
2008; Hadjikhani & Ghauri, 2001; Hadjikhani, Lee, & Ghauri, 2008). Furthermore, previous
studies have investigated different types of networking activities (social, business, and macro-
level networks) separately and neglected firms’ simultaneous composition of different levels of
network relationships with multiple actors. Yet, entering a foreign market requires the
consideration of a broad range of external stakeholders, beyond firm-level relationships (Mark &
Quinn, 2005). Firms need to interact with different actors to gain the knowledge necessary to
respond to required market adaptations, and also to gain support and approval in the host country
(Elg et al., 2008). Accordingly, the network approaches in this body of research need to be
elevated to a broader and more comprehensive level that deals with different levels of networking
activities with actors in both market and non-market environments, in order to develop a more
holistic and nuanced understanding of the potential role of networks in firm internationalization.
Building on the export marketing and network-based internationalization literature, we
propose a conceptual model in which export barriers, export commitment, and exporting
experience relate directly with export performance. Specifically, we argue that the exporting
experience and commitment of entrepreneurs exhibit positive effects on export performance. This
is in line with a vast body of previous literature (Bloemer, Pluymaekers, & Odekerken, 2013;

Page 6 of 43
Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Dean, Mengüç, & Myers, 2000; Navarro, Losada, Ruzo, & Díez, 2010b;
Zou & Stan, 1998). The model also hypothesizes that export commitment and exporting
experience reduce managers’ perceived barriers to exporting. More importantly, we extend the
rather solid understanding of the link between perceived export barriers and export performance
by introducing firms’ micro and macro levels of matching activities, which are suggested to
moderate the relationship between perceived internal/external export barriers and export
performance. The following sections provide the development of the hypothesized relationships.
2.2 Export performance
Export performance, which has been one of the central constructs in the export marketing
literature, is defined as the extent to which a firm can accomplish strategic and economic
objectives with respect to exporting to a foreign market (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Shoham, 1998).
It has been considered a key indicator for managers to use to make decisions regarding
international operations, since it fosters growth and ensures company survival in the long term
(Madsen, 1998; Navarro et al., 2010b; Sousa et al., 2008). Previous research has focused
extensively on the determinants of export performance, such as management’s perceptions and
willingness to take risks, managerial characteristics, and firm competencies, to name a few (see
Aaby & Slater, 1989 for a comprehensive and integrative review; Cavusgil, 1984; Morgan,
Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 2004; Navarro et al., 2010b; Zou & Stan, 1998 ). However, fewer studies
have connected export barriers to export performance, and the factors that might alleviate those
barriers. Additionally, existing research has mostly investigated the direct impact of independent
factors on export performance and as highlighted by Sousa et al. (2008), only a few researchers
have considered the existence of moderating effects to explain the export performance of the
firm. This current research thus attempts to bridge the gap in the literature by considering both
factors directly affecting export performance, and also introducing matching as a moderating
variable which acts on the relationships between the independent variables and export
performance, as follows.
2.3 Export barriers faced by small and entrepreneurial firms
SMEs and entrepreneurial firms gain from exporting due to scale and scope economies,
increases in market power, the generation of revenues from diversified activities, the spread of

Page 7 of 43
business risks across different markets, product quality improvements, the use of idle capacity,
and production efficiency improvements, as well as from becoming more attractive to
shareholders and employees (Leonidou, 2004a). However, realizing these benefits has frequently
proved troublesome, due to a number of barriers that impede the exporting process, inhibit
financial gains, provoke negative attitudes towards exporting, or even threaten firm survival
(Leonidou, 1995).
Export barriers can be defined as the structural, attitudinal, operational, and
environmental factors that hinder or discourage firms, particularly SMEs, from initiating,
increasing, or maintaining export activities (Arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010; Kahiya,
Dean, & Heyl, 2014; Leonidou, 1995). Previous research established a negative link between
perceived export barriers and export performance (Silva & Rocha, 2001; Wilkinson & Brouthers,
2006). The underpinning relationship between managers’ perceived export barriers and export
performance can be understood through the barriers’ impacts on strategic decisions regarding
export activities. Previous studies confirmed that with managers’ perception of barriers
increasing, attitudes towards exporting decrease (Donthu & Kim, 1993; Moini, 1997; Pinho &
Martins, 2010). Wilkinson and Brouthers (2006, p. 235) underlining that “the attitudes exhibited
by managers toward exporting play a significant role in whether or not firms become involved in
exporting and, if they do, their subsequent progress”. Hence, export barriers affect firms’
strategic decisions, which in turn affect export development and performance (Suarez-Ortega,
2003). Silverman, Sengupta, and Castaldi (2004) also found a negative relationship between
export barriers and export performance, in their research examining the US wine industry (see
also Javalgi, Griffith, & White, 2003; McNaughton, 2003).
Export barriers are mainly classified as internal or external barriers (Cavusgil & Zou,
1994; Leonidou, 2004a; Tesfom & Lutz, 2006). Cavusgil and Zou (1994) argue that exporting
should be seen as a firm’s strategic response to internal and external forces. The literature shows
that both internal and external barriers have a significant impact on firms’ exporting performance
(Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Katsikeas & Morgan, 1994; Leonidou, 2004a).
Internal barriers are intrinsic to the firm and mostly associated with the firm’s insufficient
organizational resources and capabilities such as market information, international experience,
capital, and competent personal, to name a few, required for export activities (Tesfom & Lutz,

Page 8 of 43
2006). They are mostly related to the ‘intrinsic’ characteristics of the SMEs and entrepreneurial
firms; as a consequence of the very nature of their smaller size (Zhou et al., 2007). Leonidou
(2004) classified internal barriers as functional, information and marketing barriers. Internal
barriers, such as limited market information, lack of experience and a lack of managerial support,
could hinder a firm’s exporting capabilities regarding identification and exploitation of
opportunities in a particular foreign market and hence export performance. Lack of organizational
capability (i.e. marketing knowledge, financial and human resources) in executing marketing
strategy in foreign markets has also been identified as one of the key internal barriers hindering
export performance (Katsikeas & Morgan, 1994). In addition, barriers such as a lack of proper
control over foreign distributors can pose a threat of the distributors exhibiting opportunistic
behaviors, and thus hampering the firm’s exporting performance. Accordingly, we put our
hypothesis as follows;
H1a: The higher the perceived internal export barriers, the lower is the firms’ export
performance.
External barriers stem from the environment in which firms operate, and can emanate
either from the domestic market or the host markets (Morgan, 1997; Tesfom & Lutz, 2006).
Leonidou (2004) classified external barriers as procedural, governmental, task, and
environmental. These barriers usually fall beyond the control of individual firm and are affected
by rapid external changes (ibid). Previous studies identified external barriers as one of the key
antecedents of export performance (Aaby & Slater, 1989; Calantone, Kim, Schmidt, & Cavusgil,
2006; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Sousa et al., 2008). A firm perceiving significant external barriers
is likely to have negative attitudes towards exporting which will also be reflected in their export
performance (Dean et al., 2000). In this vein, external barriers such as economic, political, and
cultural risks can curb a firm’s exporting marketing activities and hinder performance outcomes.
For instance, exporting to developing countries, which are generally characterized as more
volatile environments involving unstable political contexts, might discourage firms from
engaging in export activities and thus negatively affect export performance. External barriers can
particularly hinder small exporters’ performance, as they lack resources and capabilities to offset
uncertainties emerging from external environment (Shoham & Albaum, 1995; Tesfom & Lutz,
2006). We follow the extensive previous literature arguing that the external barriers perceived by
managers negatively affect export performance, and specify our hypotheses as follows:

Page 9 of 43
H1b: The higher the perceived external export barriers, the lower is the firms’ export
performance.
2.4 Export commitment
Export commitment has been defined as managers’ willingness to devote adequate
financial, managerial, and human resources to export-related activities (Donthu & Kim, 1993;
Navarro et al., 2010b). Whereas this definition refers to a more attitudinal perspective, Cavusgil
and Zou (1994) applied a behavioral approach, which is also used in this study, and defined it as
the resources a firm currently devotes to exporting activities. Existing research has investigated
the antecedents and outcomes of export commitment (e.g. Navarro et al., 2010a), and also its
relationship with export performance (Navarro et al., 2010a; Zou & Stan, 1998), which is
generally acknowledged to be positive (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Dhanaraj & Beamish, 2003;
Navarro et al., 2010b). However, the prior focus has mainly been on the direct impact of export
commitment on export performance, and its indirect impact via other independent determinants
of export performance has not been sufficiently investigated. For instance, managers’
commitment towards exporting activities can change the way and extent to which they perceive
barriers, with more committed and risk-taking managers tending to perceive them less intensely
than less committed, inward-oriented, and risk-averse managers (Leonidou, 2004a). Export
commitment can thus affect export performance both directly and indirectly through managers’
perceptions of export barriers. It is therefore important to reveal the interactions among the
independent factors, in order to develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the
determinants of export performance.
Our approach to export commitment is consistent with a number of previous studies
dealing specifically with the influence of managerial characteristics on firms’
internationalization. Export commitment reflects a managerial characteristic relating to the
behavioral disposition of the decision makers with respect to risk taking and the undertaking of
expansion activities (Nummela, Saarenketo, & Puumalainen, 2004; Suarez-Ortega & Alamo-
Vera, 2005). Commitment to export is seen as a critical determinant of export performance
(Cavusgil & Nevin, 1981; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Navarro et al., 2010b; Wiedersheim-Paul,
Olson, & Welch, 1978). Committed managers carefully plan strategic decisions and allocate
sufficient resources to exporting activities (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994).

Page 10 of 43
Export commitment is also capable of alleviating managers’ perceived export barriers and
are thus critical to the success of SMEs’ and entrepreneurs’ exporting endeavors. It can increase
managers’ willingness to achieve international objectives and provide a strategic guideline for
their decision making in foreign markets, which in turn improves the efficiency and effectiveness
of resource allocation, stimulating international sales (Lages & Montgomery, 2004; Navarro et
al., 2010b). The way that managers perceive the internal and external environment can be an
outcome of their strategic orientation when it comes to exporting activities. Leonidou (2004b,
p.284) indicated that “firms whose decision-makers are rather incompetent, risk-averse, and
inward-looking are very likely to perceive export obstacles in a more intense and severe manner
than firms with capable, risk-taking, and foreign-oriented managers”. It is likely that highly
committed managers are more risk taking and foreign-oriented, and hence tend to perceive export
barriers less intensively. This argument is consistent with a number of previous studies dealing
with the role managerial characteristics play in determining the perceptions of export barriers
(Carrier, 1999; Forlani, Parthasarathy, & Keaveney, 2008; Ruzzier, Antoncic, Hisrich, &
Konecnik, 2007). Whilst firms are exposed to a number of factors that stimulate and/or obstruct
export activities, the effects of such factors will depend on the way they are perceived by the
decision maker (Forlani et al., 2008; Wiedersheim-Paul et al., 1978). We argue that the more
committed the management team is to exporting, the less intensely they will perceive the export
barriers to be.
In general, the literature supports the idea that export commitment positively affects
export performance and also that the characteristics of the firm’s decision makers, including their
commitment to exporting, can significantly influence the way the barriers are perceived
(Leonidou, 1995; Navarro et al., 2010b). On this basis we hypothesize:
H2: The higher the managers’ export commitment, the higher is the firm’s export
performance.
H3a: The higher the managers’ export commitment, the lower they perceive the internal
export barriers to be.
H3b: The higher the managers’ export commitment, the lower they perceive the external
export barriers to be.

Page 11 of 43
2.5 Export experience
The literature also suggests export experience as one of the key determinants of export
performance (Love, Roper, & Zhou, 2016; Sousa et al., 2008). The extant literature on SMEs has
identified a plethora of barriers leading to uncertainties and potentially inhibiting exporting
(Altıntaş, Tokol, & Harcar, 2007; Silva & Rocha, 2001; Tesfom & Lutz, 2006). On the other
hand, export experience has been considered a key factor in reducing these uncertainties related
to exporting. Katsikeas, Piercy, and Ioannidis (1996, p.14) indicated that “with increasing
exporting experience, firms are likely to perceive less uncertainty in their exporting activities”.
The theoretical explanation for the relationship between export experience and performance lies
mainly in the notions of uncertainty and learning (Forsgren, 2002; Katsikeas et al., 1996). The
decision to export is characterized by a considerable amount of uncertainty stemming from a lack
of foreign market knowledge, which can be acquired through experience gained from a firm’s
cross-border activities (Forsgren, 2002; Katsikeas & Morgan, 1994; Sousa et al., 2008). More
experienced exporters are likely to perceive less uncertainty and fewer barriers in their exporting
activities, and demonstrate a higher propensity to export (Forsgren, 2002; Leonidou & Katsikeas,
1996). Learning through export experience can also help firms to develop capabilities, enabling
them to better understand foreign markets and design effective exporting strategies leading to
higher export performance outcomes (Forsgren, 2002; Johanson & Vahlne, 2009; Katsikeas et al.,
1996).
Existing research indicates that export experience significantly affects firms’ capacity and
ability to make adequate use of information when facing threats and opportunities in foreign
markets (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Julien & Ramangalahy, 2003). Previous studies have found a
positive relationship between export experience and export performance (Dean et al., 2000;
Navarro et al., 2010a; Shaoming Zou & Cavusgil, 2002; Zou & Stan, 1998). Moreover, it has
been empirically proven that export experience reduces uncertainty and the export barriers
perceived by managers (Katsikeas & Morgan, 1994; Leonidou, 2000; Shoham & Albaum, 1995).
For instance, Leonidou (2000) found that the less export experience a firm has, the more acutely
export barriers are perceived. Accordingly, we also suggest that a higher level of export
experience leads to lower perceived export barriers and higher export performance:

Page 12 of 43
H4: The greater the managers’ export experience, the higher is the firm’s export
performance.
H5a: The greater the managers’ export experience, the lower they perceive the internal
export barriers to be.
H5b: The greater the managers’ export experience, the lower they perceive the external
export barriers to be.
2.6 The moderating role of matching
Matching is the central construct of this research, as a moderator of the relationships
between perceived export barriers and export performance. It is defined as consisting of all the
measures taken at the global, macro, and micro levels to facilitate the development of cross-
border business relationships (Ghauri & Holstius, 1996). Matching activities are considered an
essential ingredient of a successful market entry, since firms need to interact with a number of
different actors on different levels of activity to gain approval, understand adaptations, and gain
acceptance (Elg et al., 2008). Matching involves firms’ own relationships with different actors
such as governments, unions, and suppliers. Matching between governments at a macro level can
also provide support and approval for firms’ cross-border activities (Elg et al., 2008). Whereas
the traditional network approach deals with relationships between business actors, matching, as a
more comprehensive concept, helps us to understand how a firm’s business position can be
strengthened by support from both business and non-business actors (Elg et al., 2008; Ghauri &
Holstius, 1996). In our particular context, matching is seen as a multi-level networking tool,
which is helpful in alleviating some of the contemporary pressures that arise due to globalization
discontents.
Matching includes three levels of activities. Global networks primarily refer to
international institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. In this study, the focus
is on the macro and micro levels of matching. The macro level of matching refers to the level of
support provided by host and home governments for business activities, through measures taken
bilaterally by governments and other social actors to facilitate entry (Elg et al., 2008; Ghauri &
Holstius, 1996; Leelapanyalert & Ghauri, 2006). The macro level of matching extends the
interactions between business actors to non-business actors such as governments and other social
actors involved in export markets. It has been demonstrated that small and entrepreneurial firms
can conduct their international marketing activities more successfully, and thus enhance their

Page 13 of 43
export performance, through host and local government support and by building relationships
with local actors (Babakus, Yavas, & Haahti, 2006; Ghauri et al., 2003; Johanson & Vahlne,
1990). Recent studies also provide empirical evidence suggesting that international
entrepreneurs’ institutional capital, which refers to support and linkages with home-country
government programs, can be a valuable resource driving firms’ international performance (Lu,
Zhou, Bruton, & Li, 2010). Matching at global and macro levels creates preconditions for
company-level cooperation and micro-level matching activities (Ghauri & Holstius, 1996). The
micro level of matching is closely related to networking with competitors, customers, and other
actors, for the realization of a successful market entry (Ghauri & Holstius, 1996; Leelapanyalert
& Ghauri, 2006). This level of matching is similar to the business network approach
(Leelapanyalert & Ghauri, 2006), which in the context of increasing globalization discontents and
uncertainties about future trading relationships, is pertinent as a strategic risk reduction
networking tool.
The key assumption of the network approach is that firms require resources controlled by
other firms, which can be acquired through network relationships (Chetty & Blankenburg Holm,
2000; Zhou et al., 2007). Piercy, Kaleka, and Katsikeas (1998) asserted that underpinning
superior export performance is a firm’s ability to manage a complex network of relationships.
The benefits that accrue to a firm from its networking activities are widely cited in the literature.
Networks can provide a firm with access to resources and opportunities (Chetty & Blankenburg
Holm, 2000), increase synergistic effects (Elg & Johansson, 1996), enhance competitive
advantage (Welch, Welch, Young, & Wilkinson, 1998), and overcome constraints, especially
those stemming from a comparatively small firm size (Donckels & Lambrecht, 1997; Loane &
Bell, 2006; Zhou et al., 2007). Additionally, Ghauri et al. (2003) argued that networks are often
used to alleviate internal and/or external export barriers. Accessing external resources through
network relationships can help SMEs to overcome internationalization and export barriers,
particularly those stemming from a lack of resources and experience and the liability of smallness
(Chetty & Wilson, 2003; Demick & O'Reilly, 2000; Welch et al., 1998). More specifically, it has
been suggested that networks (with customers, suppliers, other companies, and authorities in both
the domestic and foreign market) enable firms, particularly small and entrepreneurial firms, to
minimize or even overcome their size disadvantages, as these networks enable them to exchange
valuable information, leverage the skills and resources of others, access opportunities, and

Page 14 of 43
generally benefit from the positive synergistic effects of such networks (Chetty & Wilson, 2003;
Holm, Eriksson, & Johanson, 1999; Loane & Bell, 2006; Ojala, 2009). However, little of the
earlier work on the business network approach paid attention to the political relationships of
firms, or to the influence of actors (i.e. political and social actors) from the non-market
environment on firms’ cross-border activities (Hadjikhani & Ghauri, 2001). Matching activities
can enable firms to exploit a broader range of market and non-market resources through
relationships with multiple businesses and political and social actors. These different levels of
business activities, with actors from both market and non-market environments, can help
exporting SMEs to overcome perceived internal/external export barriers by acquiring
information, resources, support, and approval from multiple stakeholders and mitigate against
unfavorable macro-level political trading relationships.
The above evidence supports the notion that matching reduces perceived internal and
external barriers, which can in turn weaken their negative effects on export performance.
Fundamentally, these moderating effects occur because the ‘quality’ of export-related decision
making is likely to improve, partly as a result of better and more reliable information generated
through matching and networking, and partly because the impact of constraints on decision
making (such as risks stemming from opportunistic behavior engaged in by counterparts) are
alleviated (Ghauri et al., 2003). More specifically, matching could help management to overcome
the barriers associated with the disadvantages of their firms’ size and their isolation from foreign
markets, specifically in an environment that exhibits increasingly negative views about
globalization and trade-relationships with foreign partners (Barnett, 2017). Informational barriers
could be reduced with increased knowledge of the foreign market gained through a firm’s
linkages with already-established suppliers, while problems of product reconfigurations and
adaptation of marketing procedures, as well as socio-cultural differences, could be resolved
through firms’ connections with business and non-business actors in the foreign market. The
macro-level matching could help the management to reduce the impact of governmental and
environmental barriers on export performance (Ghauri et al., 2003) as well as uncertain trading
relationships (Welfens, 2017). We therefore argue that networking with customers, competitors,
governments, and other relevant stakeholders could reduce the unfamiliarity and uncertainty an
exporter faces when attempting to access a foreign market, and enable it to adapt promptly and
effectively to the new situation. Moreover, through local or host government support, the

Page 15 of 43
management of SMEs and entrepreneurial exporters could minimize their uncertainty regarding
the different rules and regulations that might have to be overcome, while at the same time
increasing their awareness and chance of utilizing any available government assistance, for their
own benefit (Ghauri et al., 2003). Accordingly, we put our hypotheses as follows:
H6: The higher the level of matching, the higher is the firm’s export performance.
H7a: The higher the level of matching, the weaker is the negative influence of internal
export barriers on export performance.
H7b: The higher the level of matching, the weaker is the negative influence of external
export barriers on export performance.
Figure 1 illustrates all the hypothesized relationships among export commitment, export
experience, export barriers, export performance, and matching.
Insert Figure 1 around here
3 Methodology
3.1 Sample
A list of firms was generated from the population of firms covered in the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) UK database. Firms included in the list had to meet the two criteria of
being SMEs, according to the EU definition based on firm size (fewer than 250 employees), and
of being based in the North West of England. Some specific government initiatives had been
taken by the North West Development Agency (NWDA) in this specific area, and we aimed to
explore the managerial relevance and impact of these initiatives. The criteria yielded 900 firms
across all manufacturing industries. We mainly focused on the manufacturing business and did
not include intermediate trade organizations, trading agents, or service firms, as it would have
been difficult to accurately specify the value of the goods traded. A questionnaire was sent to
each firm with the support and endorsement of the NWDA. The respondents were those deemed
most knowledgeable about the firms’ exporting business, such as marketing managers and senior
managers. Support and engagement from the NWDA was vital as we drew on elements of
Dillon’s ‘Tailored Design Method’ (Dillman, Smyth, & Leah, 2014) and aimed to meet

Page 16 of 43
requirements regarding ‘social exchange’ (Dillman et al., 2014; Emerson, 1962) to improve
industry cooperation and response rates. Multiple contacts by phone and email were employed,
replacement questionnaires were sent out, and industry reports were offered.
3.2 Data collection and assessment of common method bias
A total of 900 questionnaires were distributed to the firms identified in the North West of
England. Having employed the aforementioned social exchange procedures and multiple
contacts, 106 usable responses were obtained, a response rate of about 11.7%. This reflects a
good representation of the population, considering the difficulties encountered in survey projects
these days, and also the decline in response rates reported in organizational and IB research
journals (Chidlow, Ghauri, Yeniyurt, & Cavusgil, 2015; Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007). Following
the recommendation of Baruch and Holtom (2008), we assessed non-response bias by classifying
the responses into two groups, early responses and late responses (Armstrong & Overton, 1977;
Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007). Furthermore, independent t-tests on demographic variables such as
revenue and employee numbers were performed. No significant differences emerged. We ran
additional t-tests between these two groups, on key variables in the proposed conceptual model,
such as export barriers. Again, no significant difference emerged, hence non-response bias was
deemed not to present a problem in our dataset (Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Rogelberg &
Stanton, 2007).
As our data were collected based on self-reports, there existed the potential for the
occurrence of common method bias. Following the recommendation of Podsakoff and Organ
(1986), we conducted a Harman one-factor test and found that no dominant factor emerged (the
first factor explains only 13% of the total variance). This result confirmed that common method
bias would not be a major threat to our subsequent hypothesis testing.
3.3 Measurement
The questionnaire was developed with reflective measurement scales, and the items for
each construct were taken from established and validated scales. The first part of the
questionnaire focused on managers’ perceptions of barriers. The second part concentrated on the
export commitment, matching, and export performance evaluations of the respondents. The
operationalization of each construct was as follows:

Page 17 of 43
Export barriers: For the first part of the questionnaire, the entrepreneurial firms’
managers were asked to rate to what extent they felt each barrier, as identified by Leonidou
(2004a), posed a challenge to their firm’s exporting activities. Response levels were anchored on
a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “very much” (7) to “not at all” (1). A total of 16
internal/external export barriers were listed. The internal barriers construct included “functional”
barriers (such as lack of managerial time to deal with exports, inadequate/untrained personnel for
exporting, shortage of working capital to finance exports), “informational barriers” (such as lack
of information about international markets and foreign business opportunities etc.), and
“product”, “logistics”, and “distribution” barriers (such as unavailability of warehousing facilities
abroad, difficulty of supplying inventory abroad, and difficulty of developing new products for
foreign markets). The external barriers construct included “socio-cultural” barriers (different
socio-cultural traits etc.), “procedural” barriers (unfamiliar exporting procedures/documentation
and unfavorable home rules and regulations), “task” barriers (such as unfamiliar foreign business
practices), and “economic” and “political-legal” barriers (such as foreign currency exchange
risks, strict foreign rules and regulations, slow collection of payments from abroad, and high-
tariff and non-tariff barriers).
Export commitment: We assessed the level of export commitment using subjective
measures dealing with managers’ behaviors towards exporting. Two items, “we commit
significant resources to the export venture” and “management demonstrates strong commitment
to the export venture”, were adapted from Cavusgil and Zou (1994), and the respondents were
asked to evaluate them on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7). We operationalized export experience as a single-item scale using the
number of years a firm had engaged in exporting activities (Cadogan, Adamantios, & Siguaw,
2002; Katsikeas et al., 1996; Navarro et al., 2010a).
Matching: The matching construct, which was introduced by Ghauri and Holstius (1996)
in a qualitative manner, required operational definition. We operationalized matching as a
second-order construct with two sub-constructs: micro- and macro-level matching activities.
Whereas micro-level matching activities refer to networking activities with other business-level
actors (i.e. firms, suppliers, and customers), macro-level matching deals with the existence of
bilateral agreements between governments, and networking activities with non-business actors
(i.e. local governments and consultants), mainly in the dominant export markets. We first

Page 18 of 43
developed a new item pool, incorporating items relating to micro- and macro-level networking
activities. The generation of the items followed recommendations from the scale development
literature (Churchill, 1979; Fowler, 1995). They were developed in a joint session by three
academic experts, all familiar with the matching concept and the domain of the construct. A total
of nine items were produced based on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
Export performance: In the study, export performance is assessed using subjective
measures in terms of the respondents’ satisfaction with the firms’ export performance, with a
combination of five items that include economic, profit-related, and non-economic measures
(Katsikeas, Leonidou, & Morgan, 2000; Sinkovics, Sinkovics, & Jean, 2013). Previous research
has indicated that export performance must include managerial satisfaction, which provides a
benchmark of organizational expectations and affects the selection of future strategies (Navarro
et al., 2010b; Shoham, 1998). Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction
with their export performance on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all satisfied” (1)
to “very satisfied” (7). The items used for measuring export performance were taken from
Katsikeas et al. (2000). Additionally, we chose to measure export performance using subjective
measures only, in order to avoid biases stemming from the different industry- or market-specific
factors and to enable comparison among the responses. Moreover, small export firms are often
reluctant to disclose confidential information regarding their financial condition, while it has also
been suggested that financial data published for SMEs are very often manipulated either to
appear financially strong to the interested parties (shareholders, banks etc.) or to reduce the firm’s
tax obligations (Brigham & Ehrhardt, 2002). Finally, firm size was included as a control variable
so that we could assess the effect of exporting SMEs’ scale on their export performance. Firm
size was operationalized as the total sales of the company. Table 1 presents the measurement
scales.
Insert Table 1 around here

Page 19 of 43
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics of the sample firms are presented in Table 2. The engineering
sector was most widely represented in the sample, with 31.10%, followed by firms in the textile
(10.40%), chemicals (4.70%), automotive (3.80%), and furnishing (2.80%) industries. Despite a
strong bias towards the engineering sector, the generalizability of the sample to the population of
firms in the North West region of England is not considered a problem. However, the data will
most probably lack generalizability to the UK context overall. The results demonstrate that 59.3%
of the firms are younger than 25 years old. All firms have less than 250 employees, while 73.7%
percent of them have less than 50 full-time employees. The descriptive data also show that 71.8%
percent of the sample firms have less than 20 years of export experience, while more than 50%
have less than 10 years. Overall, our sample reflects small and young entrepreneurial firms, most
having limited export experience.
Insert Table 2 around here
3.4.2 PLS analysis
We applied PLS-SEM to our data, using the SmartPLS 3 software (Ringle, Wende, &
Becker, 2015). The following features made PLS-SEM the most appropriate data analysis
technique for this research. Firstly, PLS-SEM is one of the most appropriate techniques for
examining exploratory/predictive research models where the objective is to explain variance
(Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009; Richter, Sinkovics, Ringle, & Schlägel, 2016). To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce the matching construct into a conceptual
model and test it using quantitative data. We aim to explore previously untested relationships
between matching, export barriers, export commitment, and export performance using a ‘soft-
modeling’ approach (Wold, 1980). Hence, given its exploratory and theory-building nature, PLS-
SEM is the most appropriate method for this research. Secondly, we developed a complex model
in terms of both the number of relationships and also the inclusion of both direct and moderated
effects between constructs, for which PLS offers robust solutions (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt,

Page 20 of 43
2017; Kurt, Yamin, Sinkovics, & Sinkovics, 2016). Finally, with PLS-SEM, the sample size must
meet only minimal requirements in order for robust statistical power to be gained (Hair, Sarstedt,
Pieper, & Ringle, 2012; Henseler et al., 2009; Lohmöller, 1989). We have a moderate sample size
(n=106), but it is sufficient under the ‘ten times’ rule, which makes PLS-SEM a robust analysis
technique for our research (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Reinartz, Haenlein, &
Henseler, 2009; Richter et al., 2016). We used a two-stage hierarchical component model (HCM)
analysis for the operationalization of the higher-order construct-matching (Hair et al., 2017). We
first ran the first-order measurement model in order to obtain latent variable scores for the lower-
order components, which became the observed indicators of the matching construct in the higher-
order component measurement model (Becker, Klein, & Wetzels, 2012). This enabled us to
estimate a more parsimonious model in the higher-level analysis. We also applied PLS Mode A
as reflective measurements are usually associated with Mode A (Hair et al., 2017).
3.4.3 Assessment of the measurement model
We assessed the measurement model with reflective indicators by evaluating reliability
and validity. We examined internal reliability using composite reliability (CR). Hair et al. (2017)
indicated that PLS does not require all indicators to have equal reliability (as Cronbach’s alpha
does), which makes CR a more appropriate measure of reliability for the PLS-SEM method. The
CR scores were all above 0.8, ranging from 0.809 to 0.958, which suggests that the composite
measurement items have sufficient reliability (Hair et al., 2017). We also assessed the reliability
of each latent variable. Most of the variables explained a substantial part of each indicator’s
variance, and the correlations between the constructs and each of their manifest variables were at
least 0.50. We followed the minimum cut-off criterion of 0.5 for the indicator’s outer loadings
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). The absolute standardized first-
order outer loadings ranged from 0.624 to 0.944, with most items exceeding the value of 0.7. One
item related to the matching construct was slightly below that threshold, at 0.437, but for reasons
of internal consistency was retained in the construct scale (see Table 1). A total of eight reflective
indicators (five items from export barriers and three items from matching) with very low outer
loadings (below 0.40) were dropped from the respective constructs (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips,
1991; Hair et al., 2017).

Page 21 of 43
To assess the validity of the constructs, we examined convergent and discriminant
validity. Convergent validity signifies that the set of indicators represents one and the same
underlying construct, and this was assessed following Fornell and Larcker (1981), who suggest
that an average variance extracted (AVE) of at least 0.5 indicates sufficient convergent validity.
All constructs showed AVE values greater than the 0.5 threshold, ranging from 0.510 to 0.884,
confirming convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We assessed discriminant validity
using the Fornell-Larcker and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criteria. The Fornell-Larcker
criterion postulates that a latent variable shares more variance with its assigned indicators than
with any other latent variable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 3, since the AVE of
each latent variable is greater than the latent variable’s highest squared correlation with any other
latent variable, discriminant validity is also established. The HTMT ratios of the correlations are
part of a new criterion developed by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2014) to assess discriminant
validity. The HTMT results presented in Table 3 are all below the threshold of 0.90, which again
confirms discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2014).
Insert Table 3 around here
3.4.4 Structural model results and hypothesis testing
We now proceed with the structural model assessment given the reliable and valid
measurement model estimation. The coefficient of determination (R
2
) of the endogenous latent
variables is a vital element of evaluating the predictive power of the structural model. Chin
(1998) describes R
2
values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 in PLS path models as substantial, moderate,
and weak, respectively. The R
2
value of export performance is 0.453, indicating the model has a
moderate level of predictive power (Chin, 1998; Cohen, 1988; Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012).
We assessed the effect size (f
2
, the change in R
2
) in order to examine the impact of an
independent latent variable on a dependent latent variable (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2017). f
2
values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered small, medium, and large effect sizes (Chin, 2010;
Cohen, 1988). The effect sizes of internal barriers, external barriers, export commitment, export
experience, and matching on export performance are 0.076, 0.018, 0.197, 0.252, and 0.097,
respectively. The results demonstrate medium effect sizes from export commitment and export

Page 22 of 43
experience to export performance, and small effect sizes from internal barriers, external barriers,
and matching to export performance.
We used the bootstrapping technique to test the hypotheses and assess the path
coefficients’ significance (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2009). We ran a 5000 times
resampling method of the 106 observations. The path coefficients from internal barriers and
external barriers to export performance are -0.324 (t= 2.378, p< 0.05) and 0.140 (t= 1.222, n.s.)
respectively, which support only H1a. The path coefficient from export commitment to export
performance is 0.333 (t= 3.449, p<0.01) and those to internal barriers and external barriers are -
0.369 (t= 4.116, p<0.001) and -0.300 (t= 2.976, p<0.01) respectively, which support H2, H3a,
and H3b. The path coefficient from export experience to export performance is 0.146 (t= 2.205,
p<0.05) and those to internal barriers and external barriers are -0.417 (t= 5.752, p<0.01) and -
0.256 (t= 3.038, p<0.01) respectively, which support H4, H5a, and H5b. The path coefficient
from matching to export performance is 0.251 (t= 2.231, p<0.05), which supports H6. The results
also indicate that matching only significantly moderates the relationship between internal barriers
and export performance (β= -0.308, t= 2.371, p<0.05), which confirms H7a. When we controlled
for firm size, we found a significant effect (β= 0.099) on the performance dimension at a 0.05
level of significance. The results of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2
below.
Insert Table 4 and Figure 2 around here
The results presented in Table 4 and Figure 2 indicate that, out of the moderating
relationships, only the moderating effect of matching in connection with internal barriers turns
out to significantly alleviate the negative impact of internal barriers on export performance.
Moreover, there are significant contributions made by export experience and export commitment
in terms of alleviating both the internal and external export barriers perceived by managers.
Matching, export experience, and export commitment also directly and significantly contribute to
export performance. The findings also reveal that the perceived internal barriers are considered
the main impediments to exporting activities in the context of SMEs, whereas external barriers

Page 23 of 43
have no significant impact on export performance. Finally, we found the size of the firm to have a
positive yet small impact on its exporting performance.
4 Discussion
Globalization has been driving the IB research field over the past three decades (Meyer,
2017). As highlighted by Buckley (2002), it has been one of the three key research areas
successfully tackled in the IB field. Furthermore, Buckley and Ghauri (2004) highlighted
globalization as one of the next big questions of IB research. However, in the aftermath of the
recent global recession in 2008, globalization is shifting into a different phase, characterized by
popular globalization discontents (Stiglitz, 2018) and a gradual increase in protective measures
taken by national governments (Bremmer, 2014; Kobrin, 2017; Meyer, 2017). While
globalization has benefited the vast majority of the world’s population, there have also been
losers, mainly the middle class and low-skilled populations in the advanced economies, whose
living standards have fallen in both real and nominal terms as a result of a redistribution/transfer
of low-knowledge activities to lower-cost locations/emerging markets (Cano-Kollmann et al.,
2017; Cuervo-Cazurrra et al., 2017; Rodrik, 2018; Stiglitz, 2018). This discontent experienced by
large (middle-class and lower-class) segments of the populations in the global north has fueled
nationalist and protectionist movements that have given rise to populist narratives and facilitated
the implementation of anti-globalist policies (Cano-Kollmann et al., 2017; Stiglitz, 2018).
Similarly, recent studies have highlighted a continuous increase of policy measures and
regulations creating less welcoming investment climates and more barriers to cross-border
activities, also confirmed by the recent UNCTAD and WTO figures (Kaspar, 2017; Sauvant,
2013; UNCTAD, 2016; WTO, 2016).
Technological advances and institutional changes have been accepted as two main pillars
of globalization (Cuervo-Cazurrra et al., 2017). Whereas technological advances such as
transportation and electronic communications are likely to progress, institutional changes have
started to reverse, moving from pro-globalization back to anti-globalization (ibid). Although
policy reversals towards protectionist sentiments are likely to hamper the cross-border activities
of both large and small firms, MNEs have sufficient resources to “implement technological
workarounds to circumvent anti-globalization policies as well as to lobby successfully against
policies that harm their specific interest” (Cano-Kollmann et al., 2017, p.4). Therefore, protective

Page 24 of 43
nation-centered policies will be particularly deleterious to SMEs and international new ventures,
which are active players in export markets (ibid). Hence, managers of these small firms are now
challenged to make more careful decisions and find strategies to manage the risks associated with
the shift towards a less interconnected global landscape accompanied by increasing skepticism
towards free trade.
Not only managers but also IB scholars need to address these vibrant changes and develop
a more nuanced understanding of the new developments, structural changes, and uncertainties in
the global landscape (Delios, 2017). The influence of these trends on both organizations and
societies can be better understood through focusing on specific contexts in which anti-
globalization movements are becoming prominent (i.e. Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US, and
populist voices in the EU) (Barnett, 2017; Welfens, 2017). In order to be able to provide a
strategic roadmap for organizations as to how they might navigate through these uncertainties and
ambiguities, light needs to be shed on effective mechanisms that firms, particularly SMEs, can
use to reduce the negative impact of potential impediments to trade and economic integration
arising from the current uncertainties. We put forward that matching activities with business and
particularly non-business actors (i.e. governments) can help SMEs significantly in overcoming
export barriers and facilitate their exporting ambitions. Moving forward from a period where
globalization was the dominant mantra towards trading relationships that are likely increasing in
complexity, export barriers and uncertainties, this research has focused on a contemporary
context. A consensus exists that Brexit will unleash fundamental changes in the British business
environment, which will in turn alter the dynamics of relationships with the rest of the world and
thus lead to massive uncertainty in the markets in the UK and around the world (Cumming &
Zahra, 2016). Hence, the matching concept may offer strategic guidance for exporting SMEs to
ensure their exporting activities survive in an era where markets are becoming more isolated and
protected by governments.
Our paper contributes to the IB and IE literatures. Globalization, and the networks created
as its by-product, have been considered an effective mechanism facilitating entrepreneurship
(Prashantham, Eranova, & Couper, 2017). Entrepreneurship is thus now under threat from
backlashes against globalization. With the rise of protectionist and nationalist policies,
institutions, which provide the basic framework within which entrepreneurs make decisions, are
becoming subject to significant change, which could in turn create institutional voids (Cumming

Page 25 of 43
& Zahra, 2016). While firms and managers are likely to face uncertainties and delays in business
decisions, these voids might also create business opportunities for entrepreneurs (Cumming &
Zahra, 2016). However, as indicated by previous empirical research, the identification and
exploitation of these market opportunities in different countries, and the bridging of institutional
voids across locations, will very much depend on the networking capabilities of the entrepreneurs
(Coviello & Munro, 1995; Gillian & Jay, 2006; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Therefore,
entrepreneurial firms, in order to overcome institutional constraints and exploit opportunities,
need to develop dynamic networking capabilities through active involvement in relationships
with business and non-business actors (Cumming & Zahra, 2016; Gillian & Jay, 2006). In this
vein, matching can operate as an appropriate concept for understanding how entrepreneurial firms
can use multiple levels of networking activities to overcome barriers as well as identify/exploit
opportunities. For instance, Cumming and Zahra (2016) discussed that the institutional upheaval
and uncertainties resulting from Brexit are likely to reduce the number of institutional investors
available to UK entrepreneurs, as such investors are likely to flow to other attractive locations. In
this context, macro-level networking activities with local governments or political actors might
help UK entrepreneurs to secure government loans.
The highlights of our findings are as follows. Firstly, matching, which emphasizes the
micro and macro levels of networking activities, shows a significant impact in terms of
alleviating the negative impact of internal barriers on export performance, in addition to its direct
positive impact on performance. This finding provides empirical evidence of the critical role of
matching in the international success of SMEs and entrepreneurial firms. The results demonstrate
that the main effect of matching is to alleviate the perceived internal barriers, such as difficulties
exploiting foreign opportunities and lack of foreign market knowledge, for SMEs and
entrepreneurs that export to international markets. For SMEs that lack substantial information
regarding foreign markets, micro and macro matching can help them to exchange information
and resources with different actors and thus to achieve a better position in an international market
(Elg, 2008; Elg et al., 2008). Matching activities can generate valuable market information and
in-depth understanding of customer needs as well as institutional and cultural contexts (Elg et al.,
2008; Ghauri & Holstius, 1996). These findings are also in line with previous findings
demonstrating the importance of political and institutional ties as a key resource for

Page 26 of 43
organizations, which can gain support from non-business actors when entering and operating in
foreign markets (Frynas et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2010; Peng & Luo, 2000).
However, our results do not find support for the notion of matching reducing firms’
external export barriers. This result may be due to the managers’ perceptions about the
insignificant impact of external barriers on firms’ exporting performance. In the context of SMEs,
managers might perceive the internal barriers to be the main impediments to their exporting
activities. Our findings also demonstrate that internal barriers have significant negative impacts
on export performance, whereas external barriers are not considered significant for export
performance. Hence, matching activities may be treated primarily as mechanisms through which
firms can overcome their liability of smallness and lack of resources, by managers who see
internal barriers as the key obstacle to exporting.
Secondly, the results confirm the important impact export commitment has on both the
perceived internal and external export barriers and export performance. It operates as a direct
determinant of the managers’ satisfaction with export performance, which is in line with previous
research that has indicated export commitment to be an important determinant of the international
success of export firms (Aaby & Slater, 1989; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Navarro et al., 2010b). A
key way in which export commitment may foster export performance may be that it enables the
effective implementation of a resource-led strategy (Navarro et al., 2010a). Despite the lack of
sufficient resources among SMEs, export commitment can provide strategic guidelines such that
they adequately and efficiently allocate their available limited resources to exporting activities.
Moreover, whereas prior work has mostly identified export commitment as a determinant of
success in foreign markets, we develop a direct link from commitment to export performance
outcomes, for a more exact understanding (Lages, Jap, & Griffith, 2008; Navarro et al., 2010a).
The findings also show that export commitment indirectly contributes to export performance
through a reduction of managers perceived internal and external export barriers. Highly
committed managers are likely to perceive the barriers to their exporting activities less
intensively, which might also affect their satisfaction with the achievement of their export
performance objectives in foreign markets.
Finally, we found a positive and significant relationship between export experience and
export performance, which is in line with previous research that found a positive impact of firms’

Page 27 of 43
international experience on their internationalization/exporting performance (see Clarke,
Tamaschke, & Liesch, 2013 for a comprehensive review; Love et al., 2016). International
experience has been considered a key element in explaining foreign market success. For instance,
Clarke et al. (2013, p.265) indicated that “the concept of international experience plays a leading
role in explaining firm internationalization”. We also found negative relationships from export
experience to internal and external export barriers, confirming that experience reduces the level
of export barriers perceived by the managers. This finding is in line with previous research
suggesting that experience gained through exposure to international markets helps firms,
particularly SMEs, to overcome the difficulties of doing business in foreign markets (Katsikeas et
al., 1996; Westhead, Wright, & Ucbasaran, 2001). Through their foreign market activities, firms
can develop experiential knowledge/learning, which in turn reduces managerial uncertainties
(Johanson & Vahlne, 2003, 2009).
5 Conclusion, limitations, and future research
Previous studies have pointed at the role of networks in enabling firms to overcome
exporting and internationalization barriers (Chetty & Blankenburg Holm, 2000; Coviello, 2006;
Shoham & Albaum, 1995; Zhou et al., 2007). However, previous research has mostly studied
micro- or macro-level networking activities separately. This study offers an in-depth
understanding of the role of networking activities, by incorporating the matching concept, which
deals with micro- and macro-level networks, into the export marketing literature. Our empirical
findings demonstrate that matching significantly alleviates the perceived internal export barriers,
which are a key obstacle to exporting in our empirical analysis.
The results clearly show the importance of developing and orchestrating network
relationships with multiple actors at different levels in order to overcome export barriers.
Contemporary structural and institutional changes in the IB environment, culminating in popular
globalization discontents, are likely to create additional uncertainties and barriers for
internationalizing firms. IB scholarship can help in understanding potential strategies that export
firms may take in order to survive and successfully compete.
The findings of this study offer important managerial implications, particularly for
owners/managers of small firms who develop export strategies against an increasingly
nationalistic context. Protectionist policies can significantly hurt export activities and put national

Page 28 of 43
economies at risk – particularly those with high exports-to-GDP ratios (e.g. Luxembourg,
Singapore, Ireland, and the Netherlands) (Ghemawat, 2017). While companies and managers are
reevaluating their export strategies in the light of today’s anti-globalization sentiments, they
should reconsider the depth and breadth of their networking activities with different actors in
multiple markets. Given the role of matching in alleviating internal barriers, it is thus particularly
important for SMEs, which are likely to experience more internal barriers as an outcome of their
liability of smallness compared to large MNEs, to develop relationships with multiple business
and non-business actors in both home and host markets. Matching activities can help them to
overcome internal barriers and improve foreign market-expansion success.
As with any study, our research findings should be interpreted keeping some limitations
in mind. First, the sample was restricted to firms within the UK. Replications of this study in
other countries, such as emerging countries, where state capitalism further distorts liberal market
ideas, may offer interesting variegated findings. A larger sample size might also be fruitful.
Second, this study concentrates on export commitment, export experience, and matching as the
exporting facilitators. Other potential determinants, such as using the internet to reduce export
barriers and enhance export performance, should be considered in future studies. As we discussed
earlier, technological advances, as one driver of globalization, could be exploited to overcome the
uncertainties coming from institutional change. Third, although this study firmly responds to the
call for further systematic research on matching, by following a causal approach (Elg et al.,
2008), the cross-sectional nature of the study limits our understanding of how and to what extent
matching activities affect performance outcomes at different phases of foreign market entry.
Additionally, it would be important to measure the level and intensity of globalization discontent
challenges explicitly and operationalize these in the questionnaire. In our study this is only a
context variable. Finally, this is the first, and a timely, empirical attempt to develop a
measurement scale of the matching construct, which could contribute considerably to future
research aiming to develop a more comprehensive network understanding of exporting and
internationalization. Building on our construct, future research strengthening the matching scale
through the addition of new items relating to micro and macro level activities may be particularly
fruitful.

Page 29 of 43
6 References
Aaby, N. E., & Slater, S. F. (1989). Management influences on export performance: A review of
the empirical literature 1978‐1988. International Marketing Review, 6(4), 7-26. doi:
10.1108/EUM0000000001516
Altıntaş, M. H., Tokol, T., & Harcar, T. (2007). The effects of export barriers on perceived export
performance: An empirical research on SMEs in Turkey. EuroMed Journal of Business,
2(1), 36-56. doi: 10.1108/14502190710749947
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal
of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402. doi: 10.2307/3150783
Arteaga-Ortiz, J., & Fernández-Ortiz, R. (2010). Why don't we use the same export barrier
measurement scale? An empirical analysis in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 395-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
627X.2010.00300.x
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Haahti, A. (2006). Perceived uncertainty, networking and export
performance: A study of nordic SMEs. European Business Review, 18(1), 4-13. doi:
10.1108/09555340610639815
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458. doi: 10.2307/2393203
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology
studies, 2(2), 285-309.
Barnett, A. (2017). Lure of greatness : England's brexit & america's trump. London: Unbound.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160. doi: 10.1177/0018726708094863
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM:
Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6),
359-394. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001
Bloemer, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Odekerken, A. (2013). Trust and affective commitment as
energizing forces for export performance. International Business Review, 22(2), 363-380.
doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.05.002
Bremmer, I. (2014). The new rules of globalization. Harvard Business Review, 92(1), 103-107.
Brigham, F. E., & Ehrhardt, C. M. (2002). Financial management: Theory and practice: South
Western - Thomson Learning.
Buckley, P. J. (2002). Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal
of International Business Studies, 33(2), 365-373. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491021
Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Globalisation, economic geography and the strategy of
multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81-98. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400076
Cadogan, J., W., Adamantios, D., & Siguaw, J. A. (2002). Export market-oriented activities:
Their antecedents and performance consequences. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33(3), 615-626.
Calantone, R. J., Kim, D., Schmidt, J. B., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). The influence of internal and
external firm factors on international product adaptation strategy and export performance:

Page 30 of 43
A three-country comparison. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 176-185. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.05.001
Cano-Kollmann, M., Hannigan, T. J., & Mudambi, R. (2017). Global innovation networks –
organizations and people. Journal of International Management, Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2017.09.008
Carrier, C. (1999). The training and development needs of owner-managers of small businesses
with export potential. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(4), 30-42.
Cavusgil, S. T. (1984). Organizational characteristics associated with export activity. The Journal
of Management Studies, 21(1), 3-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00222.x
Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities
perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business
Studies, 46(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2014.62
Cavusgil, S. T., & Nevin, J. R. (1981). Internal determinants of export marketing behavior: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 114-119. doi:
10.2307/3151322
Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation
of the empirical link in export market ventures. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1-21.
doi: 10.2307/1252247
Chetty, S., & Blankenburg Holm, D. (2000). Internationalisation of small to medium-sized
manufacturing firms: A network approach. International Business Review, 9(1), 77-93.
doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(99)00030-X
Chetty, S. K., & Wilson, H. I. M. (2003). Collaborating with competitors to acquire resources.
International Business Review, 12(1), 61-81. doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00088-4
Chidlow, A., Ghauri, P. N., Yeniyurt, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2015). Establishing rigor in mail-
survey procedures in international business research. Journal of World Business, 50(1),
26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.01.004
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In G. A.
Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-358). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W.
Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts,
methods and applications (pp. 655-690). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-
540-32827-8_29
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. doi: 10.2307/3150876
Clarke, J. E., Tamaschke, R., & Liesch, P. W. (2013). International experience in international
business research: A conceptualization and exploration of key themes. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 265-279. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00338.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Coviello, N., & Munro, H. (1995). Growing the entrepreneurial firm: Networking for
international market development. European Journal of Marketing, 29(7), 243-253. doi:
10.1108/03090569510095008
Coviello, N. E. (2006). The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(5), 713-731. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400219
Cuervo-Cazurrra, A., Mudambi, R., & Pedersen, T. (2017). Globalization: Rising skepticism.
Global Strategy Journal, 7(2), 155-158. doi: 10.1002/gsj.1156

Page 31 of 43
Cumming, D. J., & Zahra, S. A. (2016). International business and entrepreneurship implications
of brexit. British Journal of Management, 27(4), 687-692. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12192
Dean, D. L., Mengüç, B., & Myers, C. P. (2000). Revisiting firm characteristics, strategy, and
export performance relationship:: A survey of the literature and an investigation of new
zealand small manufacturing firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 461-477.
doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00085-1
Delios, A. (2017). The death and rebirth (?) of international business research. Journal of
Management Studies, 54(3), 391-397. doi: 10.1111/joms.12222
Demick, D. H., & O'Reilly, A. J. (2000). Supporting SME internationalisation: A collaborative
project for accelerated export development. Irish Marketing Review, 13(1), 34-45.
Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. (2003). A resource-based approach to the study of export
performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(3), 242-261. doi: 10.1111/1540-
627X.00080
Dickson, A. (2013). Development and international relations: A critical introduction.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Leah, C. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research:
Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives,
26(3), 22-39. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0041
Donckels, R., & Lambrecht, J. (1997). The network position of small businesses: An explanatory
model. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(2), 13-25.
Donthu, N., & Kim, S. H. (1993). Implications of firm controllable factors on export growth.
Journal of Global Marketing, 7(1), 47-64. doi: 10.1300/J042v07n01_04
Elg, U. (2008). Inter-firm market orientation and the influence of network and relational factors.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(1), 55-68. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2007.08.001
Elg, U., Ghauri, P. N., & Tarnovskaya, V. (2008). The role of networks and matching in market
entry to emerging retail markets. International Marketing Review, 25(6), 674-699. doi:
10.1108/02651330810915583
Elg, U., & Johansson, U. (1996). Networking when national boundaries dissolve. European
Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 61-74. doi: 10.1108/03090569610106653
Ellis, P. (2000). Social ties and foreign market entry. Journal of International Business Studies,
31(3), 443-469. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490916
Emerson, R. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31-41.
doi: 10.2307/2089716
Forlani, D., Parthasarathy, M., & Keaveney, S. M. (2008). Managerial risk perceptions of
international entry‐mode strategies: The interaction effect of control and capability.
International Marketing Review, 25(3), 292-311. doi: 10.1108/02651330810877225
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi:
10.2307/3151312
Forsgren, M. (2002). The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model:
A critical review. International Business Review, 11(3), 257-277. doi: 10.1016/S0969-
5931(01)00060-9
Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (Vol. 38). Thousand
Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.

Page 32 of 43
Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Pigman, G. A. (2006). First mover advantages in international
business and firm-specific political resources. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 321-
345. doi: 10.1002/smj.519
Ghauri, P. N., & Holstius, K. (1996). The role of matching in the foreign market entry process in
the baltic states. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 75-88. doi:
10.1108/03090569610106671
Ghauri, P. N., Lutz, C., & Tesfom, G. (2003). Using networks to solve export-marketing
problems of small- and medium-sized firms from developing countries. European Journal
of Marketing, 37(5/6), 728-752. doi: 10.1108/03090560310465125
Ghemawat, P. (2017). Globalization in the age of trump. Harvard Business Review, 95(4), 112-
123.
Gillian, S. M., & Jay, W. (2006). Networking capability and international entrepreneurship: How
networks function in Australian born global firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5),
549-572. doi: 10.1108/02651330610703445
Golovko, E., & Valentini, G. (2011). Exploring the complementarity between innovation and
export for SMEs’ growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 362-380. doi:
10.1057/jibs.2011.2
Hadjikhani, A., & Ghauri, P. N. (2001). The behaviour of international firms in socio-political
environments in the european union. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 263-275. doi:
10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00106-X
Hadjikhani, A., Lee, J.-W., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Network view of MNCs' socio-political
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 912-924. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.10.001
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices
and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5), 320-340. doi:
10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008
Helleiner, E., & Pickel, A. (2005). Economic nationalism in a globalizing world. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-
319). doi:10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.003
Holm, D. B., Eriksson, K., & Johanson, J. (1999). Creating value through mutual commitment to
business network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 467-486.
Javalgi, R. G., Griffith, D. A., & White, D. S. (2003). An empirical examination of factors
influencing the internationalization of service firms. The Journal of Services Marketing,
17(2/3), 185-200. doi: 10.1108/08876040310467934

Page 33 of 43
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm—a model of
knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of
International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalisation. International
Marketing Review, 7(4), 11-24. doi: 10.1108/02651339010137414
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2003). Business relationship learning and commitment in the
internationalization process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 83-101. doi:
10.1023/A:1023219207042
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited:
From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business
Studies, 40(9), 1411-1431. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.24
Julien, P.-A., & Ramangalahy, C. (2003). Competitive strategy and performance of exporting
SMEs: An empirical investigation of the impact of their export information search and
competencies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 227-245. doi: 10.1111/1540-
8520.t01-1-00002
Kahiya, E. T., Dean, D. L., & Heyl, J. (2014). Export barriers in a changing institutional
environment: A quasi-longitudinal study of new zealand’s manufacturing exporters.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 331-364. doi: 10.1007/s10843-014-
0131-7
Kaspar, M. (2017). The role of aib and ib in a de-globalizing world. AIB Insights, 17(4).
Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, L. C., & Morgan, N. A. (2000). Firm-level export performance
assessment: Review, evaluation, and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(4), 493. doi: 10.1177/0092070300284003
Katsikeas, C. S., & Morgan, R. E. (1994). Differences in perceptions of exporting problems
based on firm size and. European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 17-35. doi:
10.1108/0309056941006201
Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). Determinants of export performance in a
european context. European Journal of Marketing, 30(6), 6-35. doi:
10.1108/03090569610121656
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What's new? What's not? (and so what?).
Foreign Policy(118), 104-119. doi: 10.2307/1149673
Kiss, A. N., & Danis, W. M. (2010). Social networks and speed of new venture
internationalization during institutional transition: A conceptual model. Journal of
International Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 273-287. doi: 10.1007/s10843-010-0051-0
Kobrin, S. J. (2017). Bricks and mortar in a borderless world: Globalization, the backlash, and the
multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 7(2), 159-171. doi: 10.1002/gsj.1158
Kurt, Y., & Yamin, M. (2016). Understanding internationalisation through the lens of social
network analysis. In H. Tüselmann, S. Buzdugan, Q. Cao, D. Freund & S. Golesorkhi
(Eds.), Impact of international business: Challenges and solutions for policy and practice
(pp. 241-264). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-56946-2_14
Kurt, Y., Yamin, M., Sinkovics, N., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2016). Spirituality as an antecedent of
trust and network commitment: The case of anatolian tigers. European Management
Journal, 34(6), 686-700. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.011
Lages, L. F., Jap, S. D., & Griffith, D. A. (2008). The role of past performance in export
ventures: A short-term reactive approach. Journal of International Business Studies,
39(2), 304-325. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400339

Page 34 of 43
Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. B. (2004). Export performance as an antecedent of export
commitment and marketing strategy adaptation: Evidence from small and medium‐sized
exporters. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1186-1214. doi:
doi:10.1108/03090560410548933
Leelapanyalert, K., & Ghauri, P. (2006). Managing international market entry strategy: The case
of retailing firms. In A. Rialp & J. Rialp (Eds.), Advances in international marketing -
opportunities and challenges in the 21st century (Vol. Volume 17, pp. 193-215).
Amsterdam: Elsevier - JAI
Leonidou, C. L. (1995). Empirical research on export barriers: Review, assessment, and
synthesis. Journal of International Marketing, 3(1), 29-43.
Leonidou, C. L. (2004a). An analysis of the barriers hindering small business export
development. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3), 279-302.
Leonidou, C. L., & Katsikeas, S. C. (1996). The export development process: An integrative
review of empirical models. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 517-529.
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490846
Leonidou, L. C. (2000). Barriers to export management: An organizational and
internationalization analysis. Journal of International Management, 6(2), 121-148. doi:
10.1016/S1075-4253(00)00022-3
Leonidou, L. C. (2004b). An analysis of the barriers hindering small business export
development. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3), 279-302. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00112.x
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. (2007). The role of managers' political networking and functional experience
in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(8), 791-804. doi: 10.1002/smj.605
Loane, S., & Bell, J. (2006). Rapid internationalisation among entrepreneurial firms in Australia,
Canada, ireland and new zealand: An extension to the network approach. International
Marketing Review, 23(5), 467-485. doi: 10.1108/02651330610703409
Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg:
Springer
Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Experience, age and exporting performance in UK
SMEs. International Business Review, 25(4), 806-819. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.10.001
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2006). SME internationalization and performance: Growth vs.
Profitability. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 27-48. doi:
10.1007/s10843-006-8000-7
Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Bruton, G., & Li, W. (2010). Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and
the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. Journal
of International Business Studies, 41(3), 419-436. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.73
Madsen, T. K. (1998). Managerial judgment of export performance. Journal of International
Marketing, 6(3), 82-93.
Manolova, T. S., Manev, I. M., & Gyoshev, B. S. (2010). In good company: The role of personal
and inter-firm networks for new-venture internationalization in a transition economy.
Journal of World Business, 45(3), 257-265. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.004
Mark, P., & Quinn, B. (2005). Stakeholder relationships in an international retailing context: An
investment bank perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1096-1117. doi:
10.1108/03090560510610743

Page 35 of 43
McNaughton, R. B. (2003). The number of export markets that a firm serves: Process models
versus the born-global phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(3),
297-311. doi: 10.1023/A:1024114907150
Meyer, K. (2017). International business in an era of anti-globalization. Multinational Business
Review, 25(2), 78-90. doi: 10.1108/MBR-03-2017-0017
Meyer, K. E. (2001). Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in eastern Europe.
Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2), 357-367. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490957
Moini, A. H. (1997). Barriers inhibiting export performance of small and medium-sized
manufacturing firms. Journal of Global Marketing, 10(4), 67-93. doi:
10.1300/J042v10n04_05
Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2004). Antecedents of export venture
performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing, 68(1),
90-108. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.90.24028
Morgan, R. E. (1997). Export stimuli and export barriers: Evidence from empirical research
studies. European Business Review, 97(2), 68-79. doi: 10.1108/09555349710162571
Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influence of international networks on
internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World
Business, 45(3), 197-205. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.12.003
Navarro, A., Acedo, F. J., Robson, M. J., Ruzo, E., & Losada, F. (2010a). Antecedents and
consequences of firms' export commitment: An empirical study. Journal of International
Marketing, 18(3), 41-61. doi: 10.1509/jimk.18.3.41
Navarro, A., Losada, F., Ruzo, E., & Díez, J. A. (2010b). Implications of perceived competitive
advantages, adaptation of marketing tactics and export commitment on export
performance. Journal of World Business, 45(1), 49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.04.004
Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2004). A global mindset — a prerequisite for
successful internationalization? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 21(1), 51-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-
4490.2004.tb00322.x
Nye, J. (2002). Globalism versus globalization. the Globalist. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
https://www.theglobalist.com/globalism-versus-globalization/
Ojala, A. (2009). Internationalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs: The role of network
relationships in the entry to a psychically distant market. International Business Review,
18(1), 50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.10.002
Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling
the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537-554.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00097.x
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy:
The nature of a micro-macro link. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486-501.
doi: 10.2307/1556406
Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. (2005). How network strategies and institutional transitions evolve in
Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(4), 321-336. doi: 10.1007/s10490-005-
4113-0
Piercy, N. F., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1998). Sources of competitive advantage in high
performing exporting companies. Journal of World Business, 33(4), 378-393. doi:
10.1016/S1090-9516(99)80081-9

Page 36 of 43
Pinho, J. C., & Martins, L. (2010). Exporting barriers: Insights from portuguese small- and
medium-sized exporters and non-exporters. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
8(3), 254-272. doi: 10.1007/s10843-010-0046-x
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408
Prashantham, S., Eranova, M., & Couper, C. (2017). Globalization, entrepreneurship and paradox
thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s10490-017-
9537-9
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 26(4), 332-344. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
Richter, N. F., Sinkovics, R. R., Ringle, C. M., & Schlägel, C. (2016). A critical look at the use of
SEM in international business research. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 376-404.
doi: 10.1108/IMR-04-2014-0148
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). Editor's comments: A critical look at the use of
PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly (MISQ), 36(1), iii-xiv.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). Smartpls 3. Boenningstedt, Germany:
SmartPLS GmbH.
Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with
organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195-209.
doi: doi:10.1177/1094428106294693
Rose, G. M., & Shoham, A. (2002). Export performance and market orientation: Establishing an
empirical link. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 217-225. doi: 10.1016/S0148-
2963(00)00139-9
Rueda-Cantuche, J., & Sousa, N. (2016). Eu exports to the world: Overview of effects on
employment and income: Directorate General for Trade, European Commission.
Ruzzier, M., Antoncic, B., Hisrich, R. D., & Konecnik, M. (2007). Human capital and SME
internationalization: A structural equation modeling study. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 24(1), 15-29. doi: 10.1002/cjas.3
Sauvant, K. (2013). The rise of FDI protectionism. Columbia FDI Perspectives. from
http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2013/12/sauvant_rise.pdf
Shaoming Zou, & Cavusgil, S. T. (2002). The gms: A broad conceptualization of global
marketing strategy and its effect on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 40-
56. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.66.4.40.18519
Sharma, D. D., & Blomstermo, A. (2003). The internationalization process of born globals: A
network view. International Business Review, 12(6), 739-753. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.05.002
Shoham, A. (1998). Export performance: A conceptualization and empirical assessment. Journal
of International Marketing, 6(3), 59-81.
Shoham, A., & Albaum, G. S. (1995). Reducing the impact of barriers to exporting: A managerial
perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 3(4), 85-105.
Silva, P. A. d., & Rocha, A. d. (2001). Perception of export barriers to mercosur by Brazilian
firms. International Marketing Review, 18(6), 589-611. doi:
10.1108/EUM0000000006296

Page 37 of 43
Silverman, M., Sengupta, S., & Castaldi, R. M. (2004). Improving export performance; the case
of the U.S. Wine industry. Journal of Global Marketing, 17(1), 45-65. doi:
10.1300/J042v17n01_04
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Jean, R. J. B. (2013). The internet as an alternative path to
internationalization? International Marketing Review, 30(2), 130-155. doi:
10.1108/02651331311314556
Sousa, C. M. P., Martínez-López, F. J., & Coelho, F. (2008). The determinants of export
performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 343-374. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2008.00232.x
Sousa, N., Rueda-Cantouche, J. M., Arto, I., & Andreoni, V. (2012). Extra-EU exports and
employment. European Commission, DG Trade Chief Economist Notes, 2012(2), 1-20.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Globalization and its discontents revisited: Anti-globalization in the era of
trump. New York: Penguin Books.
Suarez-Ortega, S. (2003). Export barriers: Insights from small and medium-sized firms.
International Small Business Journal, 21(4), 403-419. doi: 10.1177/02662426030214002
Suarez-Ortega, S. M., & Alamo-Vera, F. R. (2005). Smes' internationalization: Firms and
managerial factors. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11(4),
258-279. doi: 10.1108/13552550510603298
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Thun, E. (2010). The dynamic value of MNE political embeddedness:
The case of the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies,
41(7), 1161-1182. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.94
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Wright, M. (2012). The contingent value of corporate political ties.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 68-82. doi: 10.5465/amp.2011.0164
Tesfom, G., & Lutz, C. (2006). A classification of export marketing problems of small and
medium sized manufacturing firms in developing countries. International Journal of
Emerging Markets, 1(3), 262-281. doi: 10.1108/17468800610674480
UNCTAD. (2016). World investment report: Investor nationality: Policy challenges. New York.
Uner, M. M., Kocak, A., Cavusgil, E., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2013). Do barriers to export vary for
born globals and across stages of internationalization? An empirical inquiry in the
emerging market of Turkey. International Business Review, 22(5), 800-813. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.12.005
Welch, E. D., Welch, S. L., Young, C. L., & Wilkinson, F. I. (1998). The importance of networks
in export promotion: Policy issues. Journal of International Marketing, 6(4), 66-82.
Welfens, P. J. J. (2017). An accidental brexit: New EU and transatlantic economic perspectives.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The internationalization of new and small
firms: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333-358. doi:
10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00063-4
Wiedersheim-Paul, F., Olson, H. C., & Welch, L. S. (1978). Pre-export activity: The first step in
internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 9(1), 47-58.
Wilkinson, T., & Brouthers, L. E. (2006). Trade promotion and SME export performance.
International Business Review, 15(3), 233-252. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.03.001
Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J.
Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47-74). New
York: Academic Press
WTO. (2016). World trade report 2016: Levelling the trading field for SMEs.

Page 38 of 43
Yamin, M., & Kurt, Y. (2018). Revisiting the Uppsala internationalization model: Social network
theory and overcoming the liability of outsidership. International Marketing Review,
35(1), 2-17. doi: 10.1108/IMR-11-2014-0345
Zhang, X., Ma, X., Wang, Y., Li, X., & Huo, D. (2016). What drives the internationalization of
Chinese SMEs? The joint effects of international entrepreneurship characteristics,
network ties, and firm ownership. International Business Review, 25(2), 522-534. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.09.001
Zhou, L., Wei-ping, W., & Xueming, L. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of
born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International
Business Studies, 38(4), 673-690. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282
Zou, S., & Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export performance: A review of the empirical
literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333-356. doi:
10.1108/02651339810236290

Page 39 of 43
7 Appendix – Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Conceptual model

Page 40 of 43
Table 1: Measurement scales
Construct measures
Outer
loadings
t-value
Matching
(CR= 0.782, AVE = 0.644) (strongly disagree=1, strongly agree=6,
neither agree nor disagree=0)
Micro-level networking activities
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.862, CR= 0.903,
AVE = 0.701) (strongly disagree=1, strongly agree=7)
The company commits significant resources to making contact with existing
customers.
0.822 10.370
The company commits significant resources to making contact with new/potential
customers.
0.905 10.949
The company commits significant resources to making contact with existing
suppliers.
0.828 8.536
The company commits significant resources to making contact with new/potential
suppliers.
0.730 7.656
Overall the company is proactive in taking initiatives to create new contacts. 0.840 4.973
Macro-level networking activities (
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.744, CR= 0.816,
AVE = 0.543) (strongly disagree=1, strongly agree=7)
There are strong/tight bilateral agreements between our home market government
and the host government of the particular market.
0.670 3.278
The company has established good relationships with local government in this
particular market.
0.818 4.504
The company has established good relationships with local agents/consultants in
this particular market.
0.934 4.716
The company has explored possibilities for local financing (banks/local government
loans etc.).
0.430 2.011
Internal barriers
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.839, CR= 0.879, AVE = 0.510) (not at
all=1, very much=7)
Lack of managerial time to deal with exports 0.685 10.313
Inadequate/untrained personnel for exporting 0.757 14.370
Lack of excess production capacity for exports 0.820 19.151
Limited international market data 0.655 8.812
Difficulty in identifying foreign business opportunities 0.686 11.024
Unavailability of warehousing facilities abroad 0.698 11.060
Difficulty in developing new products for foreign markets 0.688 9.439
External barriers
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.712, CR= 0.816, AVE = 0.528) (not at
all=1, very much=7)
Unfamiliar exporting procedures/documentation 0.805 10.637
Inability to contact overseas customers 0.624 4.320
Different socio-cultural environments 0.745 7.013
Unfamiliar foreign business practices 0.722 6.582
Export commitment
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.869, CR= 0.939, AVE = 0.884)
(strongly disagree=1, strongly agree=7)
We are committing significant resources to the export venture. 0.937 49.662
Management is demonstrating strong commitment to the export venture. 0.943 70.071
Export performance
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.945, CR= 0.958, AVE = 0.822)
(not at all satisfied=1, very satisfied=6)
Export sales ratio 0.883 28.435
Export sales growth 0.944 76.698
Export sales volume 0.957 92.551
Contribution of exporting to profits 0.797 12.065
Overall export performance 0.944 79.835

Page 41 of 43
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the sample
Sectors
%
Firm age
%
Size of
firms
(employees)
%
Export
experience
%
Engineering 31.10% 1-5 years 14.0% 1 3.3% Up to 5 years 32.6%
Textiles 10.40% 6-10 years 14.0% 2 to 5 20.9% 6 to 10 years 18.5%
Chemicals 4.70% 11-15 years 10.8% 6 to 10 11% 11 to 20 years 20.7%
Automotive 3.80% 16-20 years 10.8% 11 to 25 24.2% 21 to 30 years 9.8%
Furnishing 2.80% 21-25 years 9.7% 26 to 50 14.3% 31 to 40 years 8.7%
Giftware 1.90% 26-30 years 7.5% 51 to 100 12.1% 41 years and
over
9.8%
Biotechnology 0.90% 31-50 years 14.0% 101 to 250 14.3%
Electronics 0.90% 51-100 years 10.8%
Other 42.40% more than
100 years
7.5%
Table 3: Discriminant validity
Fornell-Lacker criterion Heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT)
EP EC EE EB IB MC EP EC EE EB IB MC
EP 0.907 EP
EC 0.450 0.940 EC 0.497
EE 0.225 -0.007 1.000 EE 0.232 0.025
EB -0.184
-0.298 -0.254 0.719 EB 0.204 0.359 0.290
IB -0.454
-0.366 -0.414 0.665 0.714 IB 0.507 0.425 0.456 0.855
MC 0.317 0.349 -0.107 -0.082 -0.064 0.803 MC 0.473 0.569 0.165 0.227 0.180
Notes: EP: export performance; EC: export commitment; EE: export experience; EB: external barriers; IB: internal
barriers; MC: matching. Fornell-Lacker criterion: bold figures on the diagonal are the square roots of AVE.

Page 42 of 43
Table 4
: Assessment of the structural model
Hypothesized relationships
Standardized
coefficient
t-statistic
Statistically
significant?
H1a: internal barriers export performance
H1b: external barriers export performance
-0.324*
0.140
2.378
1.222
Yes
No
H2: export commitment export performance 0.333** 3.449 Yes
H3a: export commitment internal barriers
H3b: export commitment external barriers
-0.369**
-0.300**
4.116
2.976
Yes
Yes
H4: export experience export performance 0.146* 2.205 Yes
H5a: export experience internal barriers
H5b: export experience external barriers
-0.417**
-0.256**
5.752
3.038
Yes
Yes
H6: matching export performance 0.251* 2.231 Yes
H7a: matching* internal barriers export
performance
H7b: matching* external barriers export
performance
-0.308*
0.209
2.371
1.705
Yes
No
Control variable
Firm size
0.099*
2.052
Yes
Note: **, p<0.01; *, p<0.05

Page 43 of 43
Figure 2: Assessment of the structural model
Note: **, p<0.01; *, p<0.05