Next Article in Journal
Does the Cultural Dimension Influence the Relationship between Firm Value and Board Gender Diversity in Saudi Arabia, Mediated by ESG Scoring?
Next Article in Special Issue
Family Ownership, Corporate Governance Quality and Tax Avoidance: Evidence from an Emerging Market—The Case of Jordan
Previous Article in Journal
Are Cryptocurrency Forks Wealth Creating?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JRFM
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/jrfm16120511
jrfm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Internationalization Performance of Family Businesses: Evidence from Portugal

by
Ana Roque
1,2 and
Maria-Ceu Alves
1,2,*
1
Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
2
NECE-UBI Research Unit in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16(12), 511; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16120511
Submission received: 15 September 2023 / Revised: 1 December 2023 / Accepted: 4 December 2023 / Published: 8 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Family Companies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drawing on the internationalization and family business literature, this preliminary and exploratory study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the internationalization performance of family firms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization strategy of Portuguese family firms. Using a questionnaire survey of private family firms, this paper adopts a quantitative approach. Our analysis of data from a single survey of 127 family firms shows that these firms mostly use the Uppsala model of internationalization. The results indicate that COVID-19 has a very negative and statistically significant impact on the different components of the internationalization performance of family businesses. This study contributes significantly to a better understanding of the impact of uncertainty caused by epidemiological scenarios on the strategy and performance of family firms.

1. Introduction

Family firms provide a particularly interesting organizational context in which to study the ability to respond to environmental shocks (O’Boyle et al. 2012), as they are known for surviving tough economic times and thriving in the business landscape during difficult times (Conz et al. 2020), including the COVID-19 pandemic (Miroshnychenko et al. 2023). Despite the growing propensity of family firms to internationalize (Tsao et al. 2018), and their recognized contribution to the global economy, little is known about the impact of uncertainty generated by epidemiological scenarios such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Gössling et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2022) on internationalization performance (Ribau et al. 2017; Jantunen et al. 2005; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Aulakh et al. 2000; Zou et al. 1998; Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Matthyssens and Pauwels 1996). In this context of increased uncertainty, managers must have access to the information they need to make decisions that have an impact on the company’s strategy and performance (Pires et al. 2023; Pires and Alves 2022).
Although there are several models for implementing an internationalization strategy (Kontinen and Ojala 2010; Roque et al. 2019a, 2019b), family businesses prefer to internationalize using the U-Model (Mitter et al. 2014; Marletta and Vescovi 2019). Thus, based on the main theoretical currents referred to in the literature on internationalization in family firms (resource-based view theory, agency theory, stewardship theory, and contingency theory) (Mitter et al. 2014; Ivanova et al. 2015), we analyzed the impact of COVID-19 on the internationalizing performance of family businesses.
The main purpose of this study is to assess the following: What is the impact of COVID-19 on the different components of family business internationalization performance?
A quantitative study consisting of a questionnaire survey to which 127 Portuguese family businesses responded was conducted to answer this research question. The data collected were processed using IBM SPSS software version 25. The results show that COVID-19 has a very negative and statistically significant impact on the internationalization performance of family firms.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review and develops our research hypothesis. Section 3 summarizes the methodology employed. Section 4 presents and discusses the research findings. Finally, Section 5 presents the main conclusions and limitations of this study and some implications for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Family Businesses

Family firms have aroused the curiosity of researchers because they are characterized as a type of organization that is considered unique and complex (Lee 2006; Lindow et al. 2010), especially due to the lack of conceptual clarity about the fusion of family and business (Rantanen and Jussila 2011). In an attempt to standardize the concept of family business, many definitions have been proposed over time (Smyrnios et al. 1998; Donckels and Fröhlich 1991; Shanker and Astrachan 1996; La Porta et al. 1999; Chua et al. 1999; Klein 2000; McConaughy et al. 2001; Astrachan et al. 2002; Barth et al. 2005; Miller et al. 2007; Arosa et al. 2010). However, the difficulty persists because it is not easy to find a definition (Chrisman et al. 2005), especially since there are several alternatives in combining elements (family and business), making it difficult to operationalize (Frezatti et al. 2017).
According to Chua et al. (2004), to classify and differentiate family businesses from non-family businesses, it is essential to assess the involvement of the family in ownership and management. It is also important to assess the potential for succession (ownership vs. management) that is not joint.
After reviewing the literature on the definition of a family business, and similarly to other studies (Frezatti et al. 2017), we adopted the approach of Zellweger et al. (2011) who, based on Chua et al.’s (1999, p. 25) definition, consider the following to be true:
A family business is a company governed and/or managed with the intention of shaping and pursuing the vision of business maintenance by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in such a way that it is sustainable across generations of family or families.
Several theoretical perspectives have been used to characterize family businesses (Chrisman et al. 2005; Dawson and Mussolino 2014). The literature highlights five theoretical approaches to explain the performance of family firms: (1) the resource-based view theory (RBV) (Chrisman et al. 2005; Sirmon and Hitt 2003; Fernández and Nieto 2005; Graves and Thomas 2006; Merino et al. 2015), (2) agency theory (Miller and Breton-Miller 2014; Schulze et al. 2003; Jensen and Meckling 1976), (3) stewardship theory (Breton-Miller et al. 2011; Miller and Breton-Miller 2006), (4) contingency theory (Reid and Smith 2000), and (5) institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983).
The RBV (1) argues that resources, whether they are assets, skills, information, knowledge, or processes, are a source of competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Oyadomari 2008). Arregle et al. (2021), in a study of Italian family firms, concluded that the skills and experience acquired through the greater participation of managers in generational cycles contribute to the development of companies. Chrisman et al. (2003), using the RBV, highlight “familiarity” and argue that there is a positive contribution from the family that leads to a distinctive capability that can serve as a source of competitive advantage, contributing to wealth and value creation (Frank et al. 2017).
Agency theory (2) works as an agreement between owners (principals) and managers (agents), in which the principal delegates some power to the agent. In the study carried out by González et al. (2012), a positive effect of the family was found for young, small companies, especially when the founder is responsible for the decision-making process, thus supporting the principles of agency theory.
Stewardship theory (3) is a theory that focuses on the figure of managers, where they assume a position of greater reliability, avoiding wasting resources as much as possible, and their goal is to act in the interest of the company, achieving greater return and profit. In this sense, it can be said that this theory is very similar to agency theory (Giovannini 2010). Based on this theory, Craig and Dibrell (2006) concluded that family firms are more likely to foster innovation and thereby increase their financial performance and efficiency compared to non-family firms.
There is no single or universal organizational structure for any organization (Reid and Smith 2000) according to contingency theory (4). Depending on the environmental and organizational context, there are numerous organizational configurations or strategic options (Ginsberg and Venkatraman 1985). The adoption of a structure and its configuration occur in close relation to the internal and external characteristics of the organization (Otley 1980; Chenhall 2003), so contingencies represent variables that moderate the effect of a given characteristic on the company’s performance (Donaldson 2001). Casillas and Acedo (2007) conducted a study on family businesses and confirmed the existence of contingency relationships between entrepreneurial orientation, family involvement, and growth.
From the perspective of institutional theory (5), organizations can be influenced by various pressures resulting from the external or internal environment. This theory provides an understanding of corporate behavior concerning external pressures (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), where repetitive social behavior is supported by normative systems and cognitive knowledge. These normative systems attribute meaning to social change and therefore enable the self-reproduction of social order (Greenwood et al. 2008). Alpay et al. (2008) conducted a study on family firms and concluded that among the dimensions of institutionalization, transparency had the strongest effect on the quantitative and qualitative performance of family firms, while adaptability/change only influenced the qualitative performance of these firms, thus contributing to the validation of institutional theory.
All these theories support the development of family businesses. Of course, this development also includes the growth of family businesses through an internationalization strategy (Graves and Thomas 2004; Fernández and Nieto 2005), seen as necessary for ensuring their growth and survival (Meneses et al. 2014). However, despite the proliferation of work in this area, the study of the internationalization of family firms is still in its infancy (Debellis et al. 2021).

2.2. Internationalization in Family Businesses

The internationalization of family firms is seen as an uncertain decision (Fernández and Nieto 2005), justified by the unique characteristics of family firms. According to Arregle et al. (2021), the definition of a family business is important because it brings together characteristics that have a variable influence on internationalization. It is not always easy to obtain information about foreign markets. Therefore, in the face of international uncertainty, relationships with other international partners seem to be a solution that can increase the level of security in the internationalization process (Kampouri et al. 2017), especially for family firms.
As mentioned above, the RBV (Barney 1991) is one of the main theories used in the study of family firms (Fernández and Nieto 2005; Graves and Thomas 2006; Merino et al. 2015; Pukall and Calabrò 2014). The analysis of this theory focuses on the firm’s valuable, rare, inimitable, and irreplaceable resources, which it exploits in a way that maximizes its competitive advantage (Barney 1991), thus contributing to its success (Baños-Monroy et al. 2015). However, due to their specific characteristics, family firms are usually at a disadvantage in terms of access to resources and capabilities (Fernández and Nieto 2005; Graves and Thomas 2004), which could be a determinant of their development in the international context (Fernández and Nieto 2005). The key lies in the firm’s ability to identify and make good use of its resources and develop appropriate strategies to adapt and/or reconfigure them in order to reap the resulting benefits (Barney 1991; Graves and Thomas 2006), and in the development of management skills as the internationalization process evolves (Graves and Thomas 2008).
Over the years, different models of internationalization have emerged to operationalize the internationalization process. Each of them has its characteristics that organizations tend to adopt and that are justified by the different theories already presented. Some authors (Mitter et al. 2014; Marletta and Vescovi 2019) argue that family firms tend to follow a progressive internationalization model, the Uppsala model (Table 1), as firms internationalize sequentially, in stages, and develop their activities in countries that are geographically close or culturally similar (Graves and Thomas 2004, 2008; Claver et al. 2007; Casillas and Acedo 2007; Mitter et al. 2014; Roque et al. 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Marletta and Vescovi 2019).

2.3. The Internationalization Performance of Family Firms

“While internationalization of firms can be a source of growth in profitability, it can also result in huge losses due to the risky internationalized environment” (Zeng et al. 2009, p. 308). And family businesses are more risk-averse than other firms (Costa 2022).
A review of the literature on the concept of organizational performance reveals a lack of consensus on the definition. Ford and Schellenberg (1982) stated in their study that the meaning of performance is related to how the concept of organization itself is understood. Performance can then be viewed as the degree to which the organization’s goals are achieved regarding key success factors (Alawattage and Wickramasinghe 2007; Škerlavaj et al. 2007), a concept that leads us to the fact that organizations pursue certain identifiable objectives.
The impact of internationalization on the performance of firms has been the focus of attention of researchers and practitioners (Zeng et al. 2009, p. 308). The performance of the internationalization process of family firms is a complex task, and the results are mixed (Arregle et al. 2021); therefore, the components for evaluating this performance need to be well defined. Smith (2005) identifies four groups of indicators for measuring and analyzing performance at different levels: accounting and non-accounting, qualitative and quantitative, financial and non-financial, and internal and external. Ribau et al. (2017) studied the relationship between innovation capacity and export performance. These authors measured the export performance of Portuguese plastics manufacturing companies. To this end, they identified the following components for assessing performance: sales and export volume, international market share, profit from exports, whether exports contributed to the company’s sales growth, whether the export process achieved rapid growth, and whether the export activity strengthened the company’s strategic position.
Since this study (Ribau et al. 2017) has already been applied to Portuguese firms, we decided to include the same variables in our work to assess internationalization performance. However, since we believe that the phenomenon analyzed (COVID-19) may affect other variables, we also considered other studies (Jantunen et al. 2005; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Aulakh et al. 2000; Zou et al. 1998; Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Matthyssens and Pauwels 1996).

2.4. Relationship between COVID-19 and Internationalization

In the last three years, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has undergone unprecedented changes in many different dimensions (social, economic, and even political). There are questions regarding how the shock and the resulting recession have affected businesses, both family and non-family, not only in the short term, but also in the medium and long term (Belitski et al. 2022). On the other hand, it has been necessary to adapt very quickly to the imposed contingencies, especially in internationalized companies (Pereira et al. 2022).
A lack of consensus exists in the literature (Zhou 2018), with some studies highlighting a positive relationship between internationalization and performance (Grant 1987), while others claim the opposite (Powell 2014). The existing literature has shown that family firms sometimes prioritize non-economic objectives over purely economic ones and that these strategies can affect performance (Martínez-Romero et al. 2020). And “it seems that these organizations will move abroad only when needed to grant firm survivability, and are not interested in adding risk to their operation voluntarily” (Costa 2022, p. 16). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the financial performance of family firms appears to have been significantly higher than that of non-family firms (Miroshnychenko et al. 2023).
As we can see from the RBV, family firms may not have many resources, but they do have unique assets and capabilities that can be used in the internationalization of the firm (Zahra 2003), which, in turn, has an impact on the firm’s performance (Crespo et al. 2020; Grant 1991; Mahoney and Pandian 1992). The challenge for the internationalization performance of family firms is therefore greater. Internationalization is often referred to as a precursor process of growth, competitive advantage, and superior performance (Ribau et al. 2017).
To this end, information was gathered to analyze the possible impacts of the increased risk and uncertainty caused by this epidemiological phenomenon on the development of the internationalization process. In this context, the following research hypothesis was formulated to measure the impact of the pandemic on the performance of the internationalization process:
H1. 
The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the internationalization performance of family firms.

3. Research Method

In this paper, we take a quantitative approach to the study of private family businesses in Portugal. Therefore, to collect the data necessary to test our research hypothesis, a questionnaire survey was developed.
The questionnaire (see Figure 1) was designed based on a literature review, i.e., it was based on other questionnaires empirically validated in previous studies (Macedo and Lehmann 2010; Major et al. 2011; Novas et al. 2017; Ribau 2016; Cadez and Guilding 2008; Jantunen et al. 2005; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Aulakh et al. 2000; Hoque and James 2000; Zou et al. 1998). As in previous studies, to “provide a sufficiently wide response scale to ensure greater precision in respondents’ answers” (Novas 2009, p. 283), a set of items measured on a five-point Likert scale was used for each question.
To assess performance in the internationalization process, several questions were developed based on the literature and adapted from other empirically validated questionnaires (Jantunen et al. 2005; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Aulakh et al. 2000; Zou et al. 1998; Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Matthyssens and Pauwels 1996; and Ribau et al. 2017). The following components were used to measure performance: (i) export sales volume; (ii) international market share; (iii) export profitability/margin; (iv) export contribution to the company’s sales growth; (v) whether the export enterprise achieved rapid growth; (vi) whether export activities strengthened the company’s strategic position; (vii) total turnover; (viii) total profits; (ix) total productivity; (x) increase in the skills of the company’s staff; (xi) return on investment; (xii) capacity utilization; (xiii) customer satisfaction; (xiv) quality of products/services; (xv) development of new products; (xvi) increase in market share.
To analyze the impact of COVID-19, some questions from the Global COVID-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Report were adapted (Ziegler et al. 2020). The following components were considered: (1) total transaction volume; (2) number of new international clients; (3) retention or renewal of existing clients; (4) contractual disputes with clients or partners; (5) payment delays; (6) significant fluctuations in market performance.
To carry out this study, we decided to contact a specialized company (multidados.com—the research agency) to help us collect the necessary data (http://www.multidados.com accessed on 1 July 2020), given that we were in the middle of a pandemic. A telephone survey was conducted in October and November 2020.
In terms of the procedures for defining a random sample of companies to be surveyed, our starting point was a database of 6.437 firms from multidados.com. Initially, two filters were applied to this database: first, the selected firms had to be family businesses and they had to be internationally active; then, in a second stage, the family businesses with the highest turnover were identified, with preference given to SMEs and large firms. This resulted in a database of 218 firms. To validate and prove that these companies met the requirements (being a family business and operating internationally), they were all contacted, and this information was also validated through the einforma platform (https://www.einforma.pt/ accessed on 15 September 2020).
Of the 218 pre-selected internationalized family businesses, 27 did not want to participate and 64 asked for the questionnaire to be delayed (making it impossible to obtain data on the scheduled date). The result was a sample of 127 valid responses that met the requirements of being a family business with a defined internationalization process.
In terms of data processing, descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and the variables under study. A one-sample t-test was used to validate the hypothesis. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 25 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA).
To test our hypothesis and assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the internationalization performance of family firms, we used a one-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the population mean. And we use a two-tailed test because we are interested in measuring whether the effect was positive or negative. For a bi-directional hypothesis, where you are interested in the possibility of an effect in either direction, a two-tailed test is the appropriate test to use (Pillemer 1991). Our null hypothesis (H0) is that COVID-19 had no impact on the internationalization performance of family firms, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact, positive or negative, on the internationalization performance of family firms.

4. Research Findings

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The responses to the questionnaires administered to the 127 exporting family firms were provided by the external market managers (44.9%), the CEOs (29.1%), or the accountants (26.0%) (Table 2). Of the sampled family-owned businesses, 63.0% had been in business between 21 and 50 years, and 26.9% between 51 and 100 years, respectively. The youngest had been established for 10 years, and the longest-established had existed for 178 years.
The main locations of the sample companies are in the north (39.7%) and the center (36.5%) of the country. The majority (58.1%) work in manufacturing, 22.6% in trade, and 12.1% in agriculture and forestry. A total of 44.1% have fewer than 50 employees, with only 6.5% having 250 or more employees. The turnover category of EUR 500,000 to 1,000,000 represents 42.9% of the sample, larger than any other size category. The majority are in the second generation of family ownership (70.1%) and only 2.4% belong to a business group.
The process of internationalization or the start of exports began between 1975 and 1990 for 38.6% of the sample. This process began between 1991 and 2000 for 31.5% of the sample. More than half of the enterprises exported to three, four, or five countries (54.3%). For the majority (50.5%), the export share of turnover in the first three years of activity was between 10.0% and 25.0%, and for 26.7% of the companies, it was more than 80.0%.
A summary of the overall characterization of the 127 exporting family firms surveyed in this study is presented in Table 2.

4.2. Results

Family firms are averse to risk and uncertainty. We believe that the impact of a pandemic will affect their performance. But we also know that family firms tend to be more resilient than other types of companies.
To test our hypothesis and assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the internationalization performance of family firms, we used a one-sample t-test. A five-level scale was used, with 3 as the test value for the mean (no impact) and 1 and 5 indicating the following: 1—very negative impact; 5—very positive impact (Table 3).
As might be expected, all of the companies in the study reported a decrease in internationalization performance due to the increased risk and insecurity created by COVID-19 in all of the components assessed. The evidence indicates that factors auguring for a negative impact were stronger than counter-forces auguring for a positive impact. There was a statistically significant and negative impact (p < 0.001) on the different components of internationalization performance, confirming H1.
On average, the most significant impact was in the form of a decrease in the total volume of transactions (Table 4). However, the impact of COVID-19 on the performance of the internationalization process led to significant variations in the performance of the market itself. This was followed by a negative impact on the retention or renewal of existing customers and on the number of new international clients, accompanied by difficulties in making payments on time. Last but not least is the negative impact on contractual conflicts with clients or partners, possibly as a result of the social and relational distancing caused by COVID-19. Thus, these results contribute to the literature by highlighting the impact of COVID-19 (Gössling et al. 2020; Pereira et al. 2022) on the internationalization performance of family firms. In some sectors, European companies cited tax relief/subsidies as the most urgent need, followed by access to liquidity facilities and inclusion in a fiscal stimulus package (Ziegler et al. 2020).

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family businesses. It provides a rapid assessment of the initial impact of COVID-19 on family businesses. From the outset, a research question was formulated: What is the impact of COVID-19 on the different components of the internationalization performance of family firms?
The results obtained show that there was a statistically significant and very negative impact on the different components of internationalization performance, and the most significant impact was in the form of a decrease in the total volume of transactions.
There are several levels to the contributions of this study. On the one hand, this study helps to understand the impact of uncertainty arising from epidemiological scenarios on the strategy and performance of family businesses. On the other hand, since this is a pioneering study to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family firms, it contributes to the development of scientific knowledge in this area. Finally, the conclusions of this study are useful for the managers of family businesses, allowing them to understand the impact and adapt their internationalization strategies to epidemiological scenarios. In short, this article extends existing research on how a specific type of firm, family firms, deals with external crises. It thus contributes to studies on the adaptation of the firm internationalization model, on family businesses, and on the impact of environmental crises.
However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. The study has limitations. The study is limited to a survey of only 127 family businesses. Therefore, generalizing the results of this study to family businesses should be carried out with caution. Specific validation tests should also be conducted to understand whether the thought processes used by participants in answering the questionnaire show the intended construct interpretations. In this case, since the questions used have already been validated in other empirical studies, we decided to keep the same constructs. We believe that in this way, the bias will be insignificant.
A further limitation is that this study does not control for covariate determinants of internationalization performance. However, its preliminary and exploratory evidence warrants further investigation, using multivariate analyses. In addition, this study is limited to the Portuguese context. Given the small sample size, as a line of future research, we suggest replicating this study with a larger number of family firms. We also believe that our study can offer contributions and areas of research outside the domain of family firms, so it would be interesting to apply this study to non-family firms to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of this type of firm.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.-C.A. and A.R.; methodology, M.-C.A. and A.R.; software, M.-C.A.; validation, M.-C.A. and A.R.; formal analysis, M.-C.A. and A.R.; investigation, A.R.; resources, M.-C.A. and A.R.; data curation, M.-C.A. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, M.-C.A. and A.R.;. visualization, M.-C.A. and A.R.; supervision, M.-C.A.; project administration, M.-C.A. and A.R.; funding acquisition, M.-C.A. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Authors are grateful for the support of the Research Center in Business Sciences (NECE-UBI) within the scope of the project Ref. UIDB/04630/2020.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Both authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and to the editor of this special issue for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alawattage, Chandana, and Danture Wickramasinghe. 2007. Management Accounting Change: Approaches and Perspectives. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415393317. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpay, Güven, Muzaffer Bodur, Cengiz Yılmaz, Saadet Çetinkaya, and Laçin Arıkan. 2008. Performance implications of institutionalization process in family-owned businesses: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of World Business 43: 435–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arosa, Blanca, Txomin Iturralde, and Amaia Maseda. 2010. Ownership structure and firm performance in non-listed firms: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1: 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arregle, Jean-Luc, Francesco Chirico, Liena Kano, Sumit K. Kundu, Antonio Majocchi, and William S. Schulze. 2021. Family firm internationalization: Past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of International Business Studies 52: 1159–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Astrachan, Joseph H., Sabine B. Klein, and Kosmas X. Smyrnios. 2002. The F-PEC Scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the definition problem. Family Business Review 15: 15–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aulakh, Preet S., Masaaki Kotabe, and Hildy Teegen. 2000. Export strategies and performance of firms from emerging economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Academy of Management Journal 43: 242–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baños-Monroy, Veronica Ilián, Edgar Rogelio Ramirez-Solis, and Lucía Rodríguez-Aceves. 2015. Familiness and its Relationship with Performance in Mexican Family Firms. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 14: 1. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barth, Erling, Trygve Gulbrandsen, and Pål Schønea. 2005. Family ownership and productivity: The role of owner-management. Journal of Corporate Finance 11: 107–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Belitski, Maksim, Christina Guenther, Alexander S. Kritikos, and Roy Thurik. 2022. Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Small Business Economics 58: 593–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Breton-Miller, Isabelle, Danny Miller, and Richard H. Lester. 2011. Stewardship or agency? A social embeddedness reconciliation of conduct and performance in public family businesses. Organization Science 22: 704–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cadez, Simon, and Chris Guilding. 2008. An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Accounting, Organizations & Society 33: 836–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Casillas, Jose, and Francisco Acedo. 2007. Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review 20: 141–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Shaoming Zou. 1994. Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing 58: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chenhall, Robert H. 2003. Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 127–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chrisman, James J., Jess H. Chua, and Pramodita Sharma. 2005. Trends and Directions in the Development of a Strategic Management Theory of the Family Firm. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 29: 555–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chrisman, James J., Jess H. Chua, and Shaker A. Zahra. 2003. Creating wealth in family firms through managing resources: Comments and extensions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27: 359–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chua, Jess H., James J. Chrisman, and Erick P. C. Chang. 2004. Are family firms born or made? An exploratory investigation. Family Business Review 17: 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chua, Jess H., James J. Chrisman, and Pramodita Sharma. 1999. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 23: 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Clark, Timothy, Derek S. Pugh, and Geoff Mallory. 1997. The Process of Internationalization in the Operating Firm. International Business Review 6: 605–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Claver, Enrique, Laura Rienda, and Diego Quer. 2007. The internationalization process in family firms: Choice of market entry strategies. Journal General Management 3: 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Conz, Elisa, Peter William Lamb, and Alfredo De Massis. 2020. Practising resilience in family firms: An investigation through phenomenography. Journal of Family Business Strategy 11: 100355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Costa, Joana. 2022. Internationalization Strategies at a crossroads: Family Business market diffusion in the Post-COVID Era. Economies 10: 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Craig, Justin, and Clay Dibrell. 2006. The Natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review 19: 275–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Crespo, Nuno Fernandes, Vitor Corado Simões, and Margarida Fontes. 2020. Competitive strategies and international new ventures’ performance: Exploring the moderating effects of internationalization duration and preparation. Business Research Quarterly 23: 120–40. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dawson, Alexandra, and Donata Mussolino. 2014. Exploring what makes family firms different: Discrete or overlapping constructs in the literature? Journal of Family Business Strategy 5: 169–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Debellis, Francesco, Emanuela Rondi, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, and Alfredo De Massis. 2021. Riding the waves of family firm internationalization: A systematic literature review, integrative framework, and research agenda. Journal of World Business 56: 101144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Donaldson, Lex. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Donckels, Rik, and Erwin Fröhlich. 1991. Are family businesses really different? European experiences from Stratos. Family Business Review 4: 149–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fernández, Zulima, and Maria Nieto. 2005. Internationalization Strategy of Small and Medium-Sized Family Businesses: Some Influential Factors. Family Business Review 18: 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ford, Jeffrey D., and Deborah A. Schellenberg. 1982. Conceptual Issues of Linkage in the Assessment of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Review 7: 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frank, Hermann, Alexander Kessler, Thomas Rusch, and Daniela Weismeier-Sammer. 2017. Capturing the Familiness of Family Businesses: Development of the Family Influence Familiness Scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 41: 709–42. [Google Scholar]
  34. Frezatti, Fabio, Diogenes S. Bido, Daniel M. Mucci, and Franciele Beck. 2017. Life cycle stages and profile of Brazilian family firms. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas 57: 601–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ginsberg, Ari, and Nenkat Venkatraman. 1985. Contingency Perspectives of Organizational Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. The Academy of Management Review 10: 421–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Giovannini, Renato. 2010. Corporate governance, family ownership and performance. Journal of Management & Governance 14: 145–66. [Google Scholar]
  37. González, Maximiliano, Alexander Guzmán, Carlos Pombo, and María-Andrea Trujillo. 2012. Family firms and financial performance: The cost of growing. Emerging Markets Review 13: 626–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gössling, Stefan, Daniel Scott, and C. Michael Hall. 2020. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 29: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Grant, Robert M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33: 114–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grant, Robert M. 1987. Multinationality and Performance among British Manufacturing Companies. Journal of International Business Studies 18: 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Graves, Chris, and Jill Thomas. 2004. Internationalization of the family business: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Globalization and Small Business 1: 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Graves, Chris, and Jill Thomas. 2006. Internationalization of Australian family businesses: A managerial capabilities perspective. Family Business Review 19: 207–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Graves, Chris, and Jill Thomas. 2008. Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence. Family Business Review 21: 151–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Greenwood, Royston, Oliver Christine, Roy Suddaby, and Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson. 2008. Handbook of Organization Institutionalism. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hilal, Adriana, and Carlos Hemais. 2003. The internationalization process from the Nordic School perspective: Empirical evidence in Brazilian companies. Journal of Contemporary Management 7: 109–24. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hoque, Zahirul, and Wendy James. 2000. Linking Balanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizational Performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ivanova, Yordanka, Nikolay Dentchev, and Kiril Todorov. 2015. Family Business Internationalization in the New Millennium: Achievements and Avenues for Future Research? International Review of Entrepreneurship 13: 299–332. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jantunen, Ari, Kaisu Puumalainen, Sami Saarenketo, and Kalevi Kyläheiko. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 3: 223–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jensen, Michael, and William Meckling. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Johanson, Jan, and Fin Wiedersheim-Paul. 1975. The internationalization of the firm. Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies 12: 305–22. [Google Scholar]
  51. Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8: 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kampouri, Katerina, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, and Tanja Leppäaho. 2017. Family business internationalization and networks: Emerging pathways. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 32: 357–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Klein, Sabine B. 2000. Family businesses in Germany: Significance and structure. Family Business Review 13: 157–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kontinen, Tanja, and Arto Ojala. 2010. The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1: 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kuivalainen, Olli, Sanna Sundqvist, and Per Servais. 2007. Firms’ degree of born-globalness, international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance. Journal of World Business 42: 253–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance 54: 471–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, Jim. 2006. Family firm performance: Further evidence. Family Business Review 19: 103–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lindow, Corinna M., Stephan Stubner, and Torsten Wulf. 2010. Strategic Fit within Family Firms: The Role of Family Influence and the Effect on Performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1: 167–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Macedo, M., and A. Lehmann. 2010. Strategies for Internationalization of Companies in the Northern Region of Portugal. Master’s thesis, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mahoney, Joseph T., and J. Rajendran Pandian. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 13: 363–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Major, Maria, J. Pinto, and Celia Vicente. 2011. Study of Change in Management Control Practices in Portugal. Portuguese Journal of Accounting and Management 10: 9–42. [Google Scholar]
  62. Marletta, Davide, and Tiziano Vescovi. 2019. Internationalization of Family Business: The Prosecco Family Firms Case. Journal of Applied Business and Economics 22: 121–29. [Google Scholar]
  63. Martínez-Romero, María J., Rubén Martínez-Alonso, and M. Pilar Casado-Belmonte. 2020. The influence of socioemotional wealth on firm financial performance: Evidence from small and medium privately held family businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 40: 7–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Matthyssens, Paul, and Pieter Pauwels. 1996. Assessing export performance measurement. Advances in International Marketing 8: 85–114. [Google Scholar]
  65. McConaughy, Daniel, Charles Matthews, and Anne Fialko. 2001. Founding family controlled firms: Performance, risk, and value. Journal of Small Business Management 39: 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Meneses, Raquel, Ricardo Coutinho, and Jose Pinho. 2014. The impact of succession on family business internationalization: The successors’ perspective. Journal of Family Business Management 4: 24–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Merino, Fernando, Joaquin Monreal-Pérez, and Gregorio Sánchez-Marín. 2015. Family SMEs’ Internationalization: Disentangling the Influence of Familiness on Spanish Firms’ Export Activity. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Miller, Danny, and Isabelle Le Breton-Miller. 2006. Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review 19: 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Miller, Danny, and Isabelle Le Breton-Miller. 2014. Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38: 713–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Miller, Danny, Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, R. Lester, and Albert A. Cannella Jr. 2007. Are family firms really superior performers? Journal of Corporate Finance 13: 829–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Miroshnychenko, Ivan, Giorgio Vocalelli, Alfredo De Massis, Stefano Grassi, and Francesco Ravazzolo. 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic and family business performance. Small Business Economics. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mitter, Christine, Christine Duller, Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller, and Sascha Kraus. 2014. Internationalization of family firms: The effect of ownership and governance. Review of Managerial Science 8: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Novas, Jorge C. 2009. Management Accounting and Intellectual Capital: Integrating Elements and Contributions to the Strategic Management of Organizations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  74. Novas, Jorge C., Maria Alves, and António Sousa. 2017. The role of management accounting systems in the development of intellectual capita. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18: 286–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. O’Boyle, Ernest H., Jeffrey Pollack, and Matthew W. Rutherford. 2012. Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing 27: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Otley, David. 1980. The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and progress. Accounting Organizations and Society 5: 413–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Oyadomari, Jose. 2008. Use of Management Control Systems and Performance: A Study of Brazilian Companies from the Perspective of the RBV. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate Program in Accounting, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. [Google Scholar]
  78. Pedersen, Torben. 2000. The internationalisation process of Danish firms. Gradual learning or discrete rational choices? Journal of Transnational Management Development 5: 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pereira, Carla, Bruno Veloso, Natercia Durão, and Fernando Moreira. 2022. The influence of technological innovations on international business strategy before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Procedia Computer Science 196: 44–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Pillemer, David B. 1991. One- versus Two-Tailed Hypothesis Tests in Contemporary Educational Research. Educational Researcher 20: 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pires, Rui, and Maria-Ceu Alves. 2022. The Impact of Environmental Uncertainty on Accounting Information Relevance and Performance: A Contingency Approach. Economies 10: 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pires, Rui, Maria-Ceu Alves, and Catarina Fernandes. 2023. The Usefulness of Accounting Information and Management Accounting Practices under Environmental Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Powell, K. Skylar. 2014. From M–P to MA–P: Multinationality alignment and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 45: 211–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pukall, Thilo J., and Andrea Calabrò. 2014. The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review 27: 105–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rantanen, Nora, and Iiro Jussila. 2011. F-CPO: A collective psychological ownership approach to capturing realized family influence on business. Journal of Family Business Strategy 2: 139–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Reid, Gavin C., and Julia A. Smith. 2000. The impact of contingencies on information system development. Management Accounting Research 11: 427–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ribau, Claudia. 2016. Internationalization among SME’s of Plastics Industry. Ph.D. thesis, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ribau, Claudia, Antonio Moreira, and Mario Raposo. 2017. SMEs innovation capabilities and export performance: An entrepreneurial orientation view. Journal of Business Economics and Management 18: 920–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Roque, Ana F. M., Maria-Ceu Alves, and Mario Raposo. 2019a. Internationalization Strategies Revisited: Main Models and Approaches. IBIMA Business Review 2019: 681383. [Google Scholar]
  90. Roque, Ana F. M., Maria-Ceu Alves, and Mario Raposo. 2019b. The Use of Management Accounting and Control Systems in the Internationalization Strategy: A Process Approach. IBIMA Business Review 2019: 437064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Roque, Ana F. M., Mario Raposo, and Maria-Ceu Alves. 2018. ‘Management accounting and control systems and strategy: A theoretical framework for future researches’, Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development and Application of Innovation Management from Regional Expansion to Global Growth. Paper presented at 32nd International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Seville, Spain, November 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schulze, William, Michael Lubatkin, and Richard Dino. 2003. Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 473–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shanker, Melissa C., and Joseph H. Astrachan. 1996. Myths and realities: Family businesses’ contribution to the US economy: A framework for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review 9: 107–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sirmon, David G., and Michael A. Hitt. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27: 339–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Škerlavaj, Miha, Mojca Indihar Štemberger, Rok Škrinjar, and Vlado Dimovski. 2007. Organizational learning culture-the missing link between business process change and organizational performance. International Journal of Production Economics 106: 346–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Smith, Malcolm. 2005. Performance Measurement & Management: A Strategic Approach to Management Accounting. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  97. Smyrnios, Kosmas, George Tanewski, and Claudio Romanom. 1998. Development of a measure of the characteristics of family business. Family Business Review 11: 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Tsao, Chiung-Wen, Miao-Ju Wang, Chia-Mei Lu, Shyh-Jer Chen, and Yi-Hsien Wang. 2018. Internationalization propensity in family-controlled public firms in emerging markets: The effects of family ownership, governance, and top management team heterogeneity. Journal of Small Business Strategy 28: 28–37. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zahra, Shaker A. 2003. International expansion of US manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 495–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zellweger, Thomas, Robert Nason, and Mattias Nordqvist. 2011. From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Family Business Review 25: 136–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zeng, Saixing, X. M. Xie, C. M. Tam, and T. W. Wan. 2009. Relationships between business factors and performance in internationalization. Management Decision 47: 308–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhou, Chao. 2018. Internationalization and performance: Evidence from Chinese firms. Chinese Management Studies 12: 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ziegler, Tania, Bryan Zheng Zhang, Ana Carvajal, Mary Emma Barton, Herman Smit, Karsten Wenzlaff, Harish Natarajan, Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes, Krishnamurthy Suresh, Hannah Forbes, and et al. 2020. The Global COVID-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Study. In The Global COVID-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Report. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, World Bank Group and the World Economic Forum. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3770789 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
  104. Zou, Shaoming, Charles R. Taylor, and Gregory E. Osland. 1998. The EXPERF scale: A cross-national generalized export performance measure. Journal of International Marketing 6: 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Questionnaire structure (adapted from: Roque et al. 2019a; Ribau et al. 2017; Jantunen et al. 2005; Kuivalainen et al. 2007; Aulakh et al. 2000; Zou et al. 1998; Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Matthyssens and Pauwels 1996; Ziegler et al. 2020).
Jrfm 16 00511 g001
Table 1. Features of the Uppsala model.
Table 1. Features of the Uppsala model.
ModelFeatures
U-Model- Exports and direct investment (Hilal and Hemais 2003).
- First, they expand to countries that are psychologically closer (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul 1975).
- Gradual and incremental expansion (Johanson and Vahlne 1977).
- External aspects such as competitive conditions and market potential are ignored (Pedersen 2000).
- They focus on specific market knowledge (Clark et al. 1997).
- Process developed by the Chain of Establishment (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul 1975):
(i) Stage of sporadic exports;
(ii) Export stage through an agent;
(iii) Setting up a commercial subsidiary;
(iv) Stage of setting up a production unit.
Source: adapted from Roque et al. (2019a).
Table 2. Sample characteristics.
Table 2. Sample characteristics.
N%
Role in the companyCEO3729.1%
Accountant3326.0%
External market manager5744.9%
UptimeUp to 10 years10.8%
11 to 20 years43.4%
21 to 50 years old7563.0%
51 to 100 years3226.9%
More than 100 years75.9%
Activity time (years),
Mean ± SD [Min–Max]		52.4 ± 28.8
[10–178]
Location regionAlentejo43.2%
Algarve21.6%
Center4636.5%
Lisbon and Tagus Valley2318.3%
North5039.7%
Autonomous Region of Madeira10.8%
Economic ActivityAgriculture and forestry1512.1%
Fishing10.8%
Extractive industry54.0%
Manufacturing7258.1%
Trade2822.6%
Services32.4%
No. of people working for the company<505644.1%
50–994737.0%
100–2491612.6%
250–49975.5%
>50010.8%
Turnover last available year (thousands of EUR)<300,00010.8%
300,000–500,0003729.4%
500,000–1,000,0005442.9%
1,000,000–1,500,0002721.4%
>1,500,00075.6%
Generational level of the company1º2015.7%
2º8970.1%
3º1511.8%
4º32.4%
The company belongs to an economic groupNo12497.6%
Yes32.4%
Year in which the company started exporting and/or began your internationalization processUntil 19742418.9%
From 1975 to 19904938.6%
From 1991 to 20004031.5%
From 2001 to 20101310.2%
After 201010.8%
How many countries it currently exports to1–24031.5%
3–56954.3%
6–101713.4%
>1010.8%
The proportion of exports in turnover in the first three years of activityLess than 10% of sales44.0%
From 10% to 25% of sales5150.5%
From 26% to 50% of sales1615.8%
From 51% to 80% of sales33.0%
More than 80% of sales2726.7%
Note: SD—standard deviation; Min—minimum; Max—maximum.
Table 3. Impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family firms—one-sample t-test.
Table 3. Impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family firms—one-sample t-test.
Test Value = 3
tdfSig. (2-Tailed)Mean Difference95% Confidence Interval
LowerUpper
Total volume of transactions−33,7641260.000−1.504−1.59−1.42
Number of new international clients−31,8521260.000−1.370−1.46−1.28
Retaining or renewing existing customers−31,8131260.000−1.362−1.45−1.28
Contractual disputes with clients or partners−31,7511260.000−1.339−1.42−1.26
Late payments−31,8521260.000−1.370−1.46−1.28
Significant variations in market performance−32,2631260.000−1.417−1.50−1.33
Source: IBM SPSS version 25.
Table 4. Impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family firms—one-sample statistics.
Table 4. Impact of COVID-19 on the internationalization performance of family firms—one-sample statistics.
NMeanStd DeviationStd. Error Mean
Total volume of transactions1271.500.5020.045
Number of new international clients1271.630.4850.043
Retaining or renewing existing customers1271.640.4830.043
Contractual disputes with clients or partners1271.660.4750.042
Late payments1271.630.4850.043
Significant variations in market performance1271.580.4950.044
Source: IBM SPSS version 25.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roque, A.; Alves, M.-C. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Internationalization Performance of Family Businesses: Evidence from Portugal. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16120511

AMA Style

Roque A, Alves M-C. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Internationalization Performance of Family Businesses: Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2023; 16(12):511. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16120511

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roque, Ana, and Maria-Ceu Alves. 2023. "The Impact of COVID-19 on the Internationalization Performance of Family Businesses: Evidence from Portugal" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16, no. 12: 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16120511

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop