*2.2. Export Performance*

In the international literature, export behavior is described as the result of numerous variables (Bonaccorsi 1992). The measurement of export performance suffers from some conceptual, methodological, and practical limitations. Despite the large number of different measures of export performance, few have been used frequently, such as export intensity, export sales growth, export profitability, export market share and overall satisfaction, export performance, and export success (Sousa 2004), mainly as a result of the difficulty of obtaining data and firm secrecy.

Export performance was measured as the share of export sales over total sales (Yi et al. 2013), and has also been measured using financial (e.g., export sales and profits) and non-financial

indicators, which include some strategy-based items (e.g., firms' export goals, satisfaction and perceived success) (Zou and Stan 1998; Ribau et al. 2017a).

Meanwhile, from a broader perspective, export performance can be divided into structural factors (size, age, management systems, technology, and R&D), firm management factors (export expectation, profitability, risk, costs, and experience), and incentives and obstacles in the internationalization process (Guan and Ma 2003). The scale used in this research is the result of an adaptation of several authors, namely Jantunen et al. (2005); Kuivalainen et al. (2007); Aulakh et al. (2000); Zou and Stan (1998).

#### *2.3. Government Institutional Support*

Government institutional support reflects the extent to which government institutions provide support to firms in order to reduce adverse market effects (Shu et al. 2019; Xin and Pearce 1996). This relationship is a key element of the institutional environment and shapes the relationship between innovation capabilities and export performance (Yi et al. 2013).

Yi et al. (2013) found that the relationship with the government has a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between ICs and export performance only in regions where the level of marketization is high. Conversely, Tian et al. (2019) concluded that firm–government relationships have a significant positive impact on firm innovation. Therefore, it is expected that the stronger the government–firm relationship, the greater the firm's innovation output, especially since public policy, often under the aegis of internationalization support programs, helps firms leverage their own resources.

According to Li and Atuahene-Gima (2001), government institutional support plays a significant role in increasing the effectiveness of firms' product innovation strategy. For Szeto and Kim (2018), government–firm relations can help firms access resources and improve their performance. Peng and Heath (1996) argued that government relations play a greater role in facilitating new initiatives, including exporting. Clearly, from a resource perspective, government institutional support is expected to help address the need for resources that many SMEs have (Mota et al. 2021).

The government–enterprise relationship ceases to make sense in regions where governments are corrupt (Qian 1996; Yi et al. 2013). This is what happens in developing and underdeveloped countries, which ultimately undermines the precious help that some SMEs need to bridge their internal resource needs, undermining the innovative development and competitive advantages of SMEs. Signs of good government functioning include lack of intervention, lower levels of regulation and bureaucracy, successful provision of public goods and services, and efficient spending (Porta et al. 1999). These attributes can provide services, resources, and other factors that help firms upgrade innovation capabilities and export their products to foreign markets (Yi et al. 2013).

#### *2.4. Active/Reactive Internationalization Behavior*

The internationalization of SMEs is a complex process that requires firms' active and reactive involvement and commitment (Ribau et al. 2017b). Active/reactive behaviors are related to endogenous or exogenous factors that affect firms' internationalization processes and their export performance (Bruyat and Julien 2001). Moreover, active stimuli can result from aggressive behavior by SMEs and a deliberate search for market opportunities abroad, the origin of these stimuli being the external environment (i.e., external proactive stimuli). Reactive motives may arise from within SMEs, but reflect involvement in international business as a reaction to certain internal conditions or events (i.e., reactive-internal stimuli). Alternatively, export motives may be the result of incidental circumstances or a response to environmental pressure (i.e., reactive-external stimuli) (Westhead et al. 2004).

More active firms tend to internationalize more quickly; in contrast, traditional firms tend to take a more ad hoc, reactive, and opportunistic approach to internationalization (Bell et al. 2003). On the other hand, SMEs with greater resources are more likely to actively pursue market opportunities. SMEs that benefit from the munificence of local resources may therefore be able to proactively seek customers in foreign markets (Westhead et al. 2004).

Mediation effects between entrepreneurial orientation and export performance suggest that active firms are not only better at innovating, but also their entrepreneurial orientation capabilities sustain better performance in international markets when compared to firms that react to external stimuli (Ribau et al. 2017a). Likewise, Ribau et al. (2017a) confirm that innovative skills are not as powerful in reactive SMEs as in active SMEs. Reactive SMEs neither generate nor depend on innovation to compete in international markets, while active firms implement their ICs to successfully compete and sustain activities in international markets; reactive firms not only lack these innovation capabilities, but investment in these ICs may divert their scarce resources to riskier activities.

#### *2.5. Development of Hypotheses*

There is evidence that ICs positively influence export performance. For example, Guan and Ma (2003) consider the role of seven dimensions (learning, manufacturing, R&D, marketing, organizational, resources exploitation, and strategic capabilities) and three firm characteristics (domestic market share, firm size, and productivity growth rate) in determining the performance of 213 Chinese manufacturing firms. The results indicate that export growth is closely related to total improvement in the dimensions of ICs (except for manufacturing capability) and productivity growth. Conversely, there was no evidence that export performance depends on firm size or domestic market share. Moreover, core innovation skills (a set of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing capabilities) do not lead to sustainable export growth. On the contrary, supplementary ICs (learning, organizational, resources exploitation, and strategic capabilities) allow not only the integration of all capabilities, core and supplementary, but also enable a firm to gain sustainable international competitiveness.

Ribau et al. (2017a) assessed the impact of internal ICs on the export performance of 147 Portuguese SMEs in the plastics industry, with the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) based on firms' proactive or reactive behavior in the face of external stimuli. The results show that ICs have a positive impact on export performance. However, the mediation effects of EO suggest that proactive firms not only are better innovators, but also their EO competencies sustain better performance in international markets when compared to firms that react to external stimuli.

Oura et al. (2016) investigated the impact of innovation capacities and international experience on the export performance of Brazilian manufacturing SMEs. Conversely, the research indicated that international experience has a greater impact on export performance than innovation capacities. On the other hand, Vicente et al. (2015) identified important dimensions to build a scale to measure ICs in exporting firms. The results reveal that a construct formed by four dimensions (product development capability, innovativeness, strategic capability and technological capability) positively affects export performance. Thus, we present the following hypothesis:
