Abstract
This article systematically reviews and critically examines 72 journal articles published (from 1980 to 2012) on the internationalization of family firms. Stemming from existing literature, core aspects and main gaps are identified. We aim to overcome the inconclusiveness of findings of previous research by offering an integrative theoretical model integrating the concept of socioemotional wealth with the revised Uppsala model. Our framework helps understand behaviors of internationalizing family firms by focusing on when and how they internationalize, especially related to risk attitudes, the role of knowledge and networks. Ultimately, we provide future research themes flowing from our suggested model.
Introduction
Within the growing body of research on family businesses (hereafter FBs), the topic of internationalization is receiving increased attention (e.g., Arregle, Naldi, Nordqvist, & Hitt, 2012; Fernández & Nieto, 2006; Sciascia, Mazzola, Astrachan, & Pieper, 2012b). Drivers for the compulsion of FBs to internationalize their operations can be seen in the ever-intensifying globalization (Claver, Rienda, & Quer, 2007; Parker, 1998), with fierce worldwide competition, technological developments, and new growth prospects beyond national borders. These allow for a better exploitation of economies of scale and the utilization of lower labor costs, lower commodity prices, as well as access to new qualified employees and know-how in foreign industry clusters (Dicken, 2011). Therefore, offering goods and services outside the home country provides fruitful growth opportunities for FBs, gives succeeding generations employment opportunities, or simply increases distributable dividends (Claver, Rienda, & Quer, 2009).
Despite the growing body of knowledge on family firm internationalization, this young field of inquiry is still seeking for conclusive knowledge, which reconciles and connects the disjunctive findings produced so far. To fill this gap, we reviewed 72 articles stemming from peer-reviewed journals published (from 1980 up to the end of 2012) in English language. Given that research in this area is both methodologically and topically diverse, disjointed, and scattered across a plethora of journals, meta-analytic aggregation of an adequately large set of empirically comparable studies is unfeasible. Because of this unfeasibility, we chose to combine a systematic approach for the selection of articles and a narrative review to analyze the literature. The latter type of review is especially appropriate for linking a diverse set of studies for purposes of reflection and syntheses (Baumeister & Leary, 1997).
Looking at the selected literature from a macro-perspective, we find that the results related to the impact of family ownership and influence on different aspects of internationalization (e.g., type of market entry, speed of international expansion, or degree of international sales) are highly inconsistent. Although some authors suggest that family ownership and involvement (with all the consequences it entails) have a positive impact on internationalization (e.g., Carr & Bateman, 2009; Zahra, 2003), others beg to differ, arguing that these family-related factors have a negative impact on internationalization dimensions (e.g., Fernández & Nieto, 2006; Graves & Thomas, 2006). Some scholars even find no difference between family and nonfamily businesses’ internationalization practices (e.g., Cerrato & Piva, 2010; Pinho, 2007). Recent findings on the topic indicate that family firm heterogeneity, assessed through differences in control and influence of the owner family, explains some of the mixed findings described above (Arregle et al., 2012; Calabrò, Torchia, Pukall, & Mussolino, 2012; Sciascia, Mazzola, Astrachan, & Pieper, 2012a, 2012b). The main conclusion of this research stream is that external ownership and influence via the board leads to an increase in internationalization activities of family firms, while a complete exemption of family control or influences might turn this effect around.
To overcome the above-described inconclusiveness, we focus on the theoretical underpinnings of the research field 1 and develop a theoretical model by integrating the concept of socioemotional wealth (SEW; Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Gomez-Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011; Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007) with the latest version of the Uppsala stage model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). Our framework focuses on the risk attitudes and subsequent behaviors of family principals. 2 The consideration of these specific family business owners’ influences on the triggers and processes of firm internationalization ought to explain when and how family firms internationalize and to what extent differently from nonfamily firms. As the model from Johanson and Vahlne (2009) is based on the network view of internationalization, including aspects of social capital and international entrepreneurship, it furthermore provides a comprehensive theoretical bracket, which in our case is extended with SEW considerations.
The main contributions of this study are threefold. First, this analysis provides an exhaustive review of the field. Kontinen and Ojala (2010a) delivered a first thorough review of research on family firm internationalization, analyzing articles that have been published up to the end of 2008. As the field has significantly grown since then, 3 and the focus of our review lies on theory integration, we complement and extend their work. Second, this article deducts from the findings of an integrative theoretical model. This model contributes to a stronger integration of theoretical knowledge from the field of international management into family business research, in this case extending the domain of research on SEW (Berrone et al., 2012). At the same time, it extends the knowledge from the international management literature by considering idiosyncratic family firm specificities, therefore also giving something back to international business domain, specifically to the Uppsala stage model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). By doing so, our article responds to calls for more theory integration and exchange between family business research and other disciplines (Moores, 2009; Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua, 1997). Furthermore, the model reconciles some of the inconclusiveness in the literature sample by investigating the effects of SEW considerations (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011) on the process of internationalization following the revised Uppsala stage model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). Ultimately, this study provides promising future research venues stemming from this model, with the ultimate objective of pushing the field toward more rigor and impact.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows: After the description of the literature selection process, general findings on the overall sample are outlined. The following section provides an overview of the results within the literature sample. On the basis of these findings, the next section discusses and synthesizes them through a theoretical integrative model. The article ends with concluding thoughts and insightful future research directions.
Method
The selection of eligible literature for our research objectives is performed with a systematic selection process comparable to the process conducted by David and Han (2004), as used by Newbert (2007), but with some customizations. The selection criteria are the following:
Search for published journal articles only, in journals with a peer-reviewed evaluation process, solely written in English language from January 1980 to end of December 2012.
Search the following databases: ABI/Inform ProQuest, Business Source Complete (EBSCO), and EconLit (EBSCO).
Ensure substantive relevance of the potential articles by looking for the combination of the following keywords in the title or the abstract: (((“family firm*”) OR (“family business*”) OR (“family enterprise*”) OR (“family influence*”) OR (“family owner*”)) AND ((international*) OR (global*) OR (“mode of entry”) OR (foreign) OR (export) OR (“international sales”) OR (“international commitment”) OR (“foreign direct investment*))). Ensure relevance of the articles by reading all abstracts checking for a discussion related to family business internationalization.
The remaining articles have to be read completely controlling for substantive relevance by checking for a discussion related to family business internationalization.
If necessary consolidate results from different databases. 4
Table 1 gives an overview of the results from this process. Additionally, we have also performed a residual search in the database Springerlink as well as scanned the major outlets for family business and international business/entrepreneurship research individually by manually checking the indexes. The main journals that publish research on family business topics were selected following previous literature reviews in the field (Kontinen & Ojala, 2010a; Siebels & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2011; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). 5 For the selection of leading international business and international entrepreneurship journals, also recent literature reviews were checked (Jones, Coviello, & Tang, 2011; Prasad, Pisani, & Prasad, 2008). 6 This step was performed to ensure that no relevant article was missed. This residual search routine yielded to 20 articles. The final sample consists of 72 articles.
Database Search Results.
Search limiters: Only peer-reviewed academic journals in English language.
All selected articles were independently and separately content analyzed by both authors following a predefined coding scheme. The following information points were used:
Internationalization measures: Export, alliances, foreign direct investment, and so on
Theoretical approaches: Internationalization theories, theories used to explain family business–specific influences on internationalization, and the family business definition used
Methods: Type of analysis (literature review, conceptual article, empirical case studies, empirical quantitative article), country of analysis, unit of analysis, sample size, company sizes (small, medium, large, and public vs. private), and variables
Main findings: summarized in a few short sentences as well as a categorical summary of the influence of different family firm specific influences on the respective internationalization dimension (positive, negative, neutral, or contingent).
If there was a disagreement between the authors of this study on a certain information dimension, especially related to the assessment of FB-specific influences on internationalization outcomes, a third family business scholar was consulted as a judge. After this consultation in all cases an agreement was attained.
Sample Characteristics, Definitions, and Theoretical Frameworks/Approaches
Despite the huge interest and research efforts in the past 20 years, academics, practitioners, and policy makers are not absolutely clear about how internationalization in FBs is initiated and further developed, what unique factors can influence their international behavior, and what needs to be acquired (resources) or which strategic process should be implemented to foster their international venture. In the following paragraphs, the main findings on the literature sample will be presented.
Descriptive Results
Table 2 gives an overview of the distribution of articles. The main outlet for research on FB internationalization is the Journal Family Business Review (13 articles).
Distribution of Articles by Time Period and Journal.
Source. Own elaboration.
Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences Edition 2011.
Note that the interval from 2009 to 2012 is a 4-year interval, including 11 articles from 2012.
Looking at the academic background of authors, there is a paucity of authors coming from international business but a dominance of scholars from family business research. Within the sample, 56% of all studies focused exclusively on SMEs, only 15% on larger companies and another 29% on all sizes of firms. Regarding the country of analysis, a majority of studies focuses on Spain (15 articles). Only three studies specifically focus on a multicountry context (Carr & Bateman, 2009; Casillas, Moreno, & Acedo, 2010; Yang, 2012). Concerning the methodological approaches, 60% of the articles in the literature sample use quantitative analysis (e.g., regression analysis) and 30% single or multiple case study analysis. Eight conceptual articles were found in the sample and one literature review by Kontinen and Ojala (2010a), which are also the authors with the most publications on the topic of family firm internationalization with a total of seven publications in our literature sample.
Family Control and Influence
The vast majority of studies use a minimum percentage of ownership in combination with the requirement of at least one family member being in a management position in the company as the defining characteristics of a family firm (e.g., Abdellatif, Amann, & Jaussaud, 2010; Claver, Rienda, & Quer, 2008; Graves & Thomas, 2006). Studies that solely chose different ownership percentages as the only criterion are rare, and mostly focus specifically on variations in the level of ownership (Basly, 2007; Child, Hong Ng, & Wong, 2002; Pinho, 2007; Sciascia et al., 2012b). Some articles have no clear definition of what constitutes a family firm for their analysis (e.g., Erdener & Shapiro, 2005; Yeung, 2000), but this is partially explained by the research questions and methods applied, as some types of case studies or conceptual papers do not demand an ultimate classification of the object being analyzed. Contingent on the research questions, notable further definition criteria used in the studies at hand are generational involvement (Crick, Bradshaw, & Chaudhry, 2006; Fernández & Nieto, 2005), self-perception as a FB (Gallo, Tapies, & Cappuyns, 2004; Okoroafo, 1999), and qualitative, cultural criteria (Tsang, 2001, 2002).
In the analyzed studies, the main theory applied to capture and explain the influence of the family on the business is the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), often in combination with agency theory (Fama & Jensen, 1983; Jensen & Meckling, 1976). Examples for this approach are the works of Fernández and Nieto (2006) as well as Claver et al. (2009). Although some studies focus on a lack of resources, especially financial resources, and the concluding negative influence of the family on the business (e.g., Fernández & Nieto, 2006; Olivares-Mesa & Cabrera-Suárez, 2006; Sundaramurthy & Dean, 2008), other studies expect a positive influence because of family-specific resources (e.g., Carr & Bateman, 2009). A more recent complementary extension to the resource-based view, the dynamic capabilities concept (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), is also drawn on by some of the studies at hand. The determining family influences in the capabilities view are seen in a lack of management expertise and underdeveloped processes and routines concerning internationalization (e.g., Graves & Thomas, 2004, 2006; Menéndez-Requejo, 2005). To explain the influence of family ownership on the business and ultimately internationalization, agency theory, combined with stewardship theory (Corbetta & Salvato, 2004; Donaldson & Davis, 1991) is comparably often used as the resource-based view. Considerable dimensions of agency and stewardship related family influences are increased risk propensity (Calabrò & Mussolino, 2011; Zahra, 2005) and risk aversion (Claver et al., 2008; Westhead & Howorth, 2006). To further expand the narrow lens of agency theory, constructs like altruism (Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, & Buchholtz, 2001), social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), and SEW (Berrone, Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010) are becoming more popular to explain the impact of family involvement on internationalization (Kontinen & Ojala, 2011c; Menéndez-Requejo, 2005; Sciascia et al., 2012b; Segaro, 2010; Roida & Sunarjanto, 2012). In contrast to the prescriptions of agency thinking, family firms can be more prone to risk because of business ownership, and also risk averse at the same time, depending on situational factors (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zahra, 2003).
It can be concluded that the selected literature on family firm internationalization is highly heterogeneous concerning the assessment of family influences. A certain heterogeneity is of course desirable, as different research questions demand different point of views on family influences, but as many studies try to make strong general statements concerning the family impact on internationalization of the business, a common, sophisticated assessment of the phenomenon seems necessary. We will address this issue in depth in the “Where Should We Go?” section of this study.
Different Dimensions of Internationalization
Internationalization is an ambiguously used term in the selected literature for this investigation. Although many studies implicitly or explicitly assume that sales generated outside the home country is referred to as internationalization, the actual foci for this are manifold. The percentage of sales outside the home country is the most common figure, typically focusing only on export numbers (e.g., Calabrò, Mussolino, & Huse, 2009; Westhead & Howorth, 2006). Although mode of entry studies capture a larger range of possible internationalization forms (Pinho, 2007), the different shades used concentrate on export versus foreign direct investments as contrasting levels of commitment. The extensive use of export measures to capture the internationalization degree of FBs can be explained by the large overlap between the literature on SMEs’ internationalization and family SMEs internationalization. Indeed, many analyzed articles have a specific focus on family SMEs and usually export is considered the first way to approach international markets. Which component of internationalization ought to be analyzed, of course, depends on the research question asked; however, we argue that a multidimensional assessment of internationalization would be more appropriate when general statements relating to internationalization endeavors of family firms are supposed to be deducted.
The use of internationalization theories throughout the included articles of this review is somewhat limited. When we speak of theory utilization, we imply a certain minimum application of the respective theory, with resulting implications for the study. A simple one time reference to a concept or theory is not accounted for in this assessment. The most popular school of thought within the analyzed literature is the Uppsala school (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), with its renowned stage model (e.g., Child et al., 2002; Kontinen & Ojala, 2010b). Also popular is Dunning’s eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1980), focusing on the advantages FBs have within the three areas of Dunning’s model, namely, ownership, internalization, and location advantages (e.g., Pinho, 2007; Shapiro, Gedajlovic, & Erdener, 2003). A more contemporary approach used in the selected sample of literature is the resource-based view of internationalization, which is a special application of the concept explicitly on the phenomenon of internationalization (Dhanaraj & Beamish, 2003; Peng, 2001; Westhead, Wright, & Ucbasaran, 2001). In recent years, the field of international entrepreneurship has received considerable attention (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 2005). Also within the literature of this analysis four articles explicitly refer to this framework (e.g., Kontinen & Ojala, 2011a). International entrepreneurship can be defined as “the discovery, enactment, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities—across national borders—to create future goods and services” (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005, p. 540). This definition includes most internationalization activities, with special focus on personality traits of owners, most notably risk propensity, therefore making it a worthwhile lens for the analysis of FB internationalization (Casillas, Acedo, & Moreno, 2007). Within the field of international entrepreneurship, network models play an important role (Coviello, 2006), as the personal network of the family members can significantly lever internationalization activities (Anderson, Jack, & Dodd, 2005). These network-theoretical approaches are a relevant theoretical basis only within a few studies of this review (e.g., Graves & Thomas, 2004; Kontinen & Ojala, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c), despite their importance. About one fourth of the studies did not explicitly use any theoretical approach as a fundament for their analysis but rather descriptively analyze the respective topic (e.g., Anwar & Tariq, 2011; Yeung, 2000). Those are, for the most part, case studies delivering a rich and detailed description of their observations (e.g., Fernández-Pérez, 1999; Harlaftis & Theotokas, 2004; Moya, 2010; Puig & Perez, 2009). Still, it can be argued that the integration of theories from the field of international management is scarce within the literature incorporated for this study. This can be partially explained by the finding that most authors are from the family business domain, respectively, entrepreneurship area rather than the field of international business. Table 3 provides an overview of the theoretical frameworks applied in the literature sample.
Theoretical Frameworks Used in the 72 Articles.
Source. Own elaboration.
Where Are We Now?
To structure the findings within the selected literature, we focus on the four most prominent general research angles that we identified in the sample. First, studies that focus on a variety of features that create family firm heterogeneity and its direct impact on different dimensions of internationalization will be depicted, followed by an overview over the findings on internationalization processes, relational/network aspects, as well as resources and capabilities. Table 4 provides an overview of the findings within the selected literature.
Main Themes and Findings in the Selected Articles.
Source. Own elaboration.
Family Firm Heterogeneity
Ownership
It appears that in FBs, 100% family ownership has a negative impact on the internationalization (e.g., Bhaumik, Driffield, & Pal, 2010; Sciascia et al., 2012b). With the presence of minority shareholders from outside the dominating owner family, this effect is turned to neutral, if not positive (e.g., Fernández & Nieto, 2005). Sciascia et al.’s (2012b) contribution sheds a new light on these contrasting findings on ownership discovering a curvilinear relationship between ownership and export intensity. They suggest that export intensity peaks when family ownership stays at moderate levels.
One of the central effects of family ownership, in contrast to dispersed public ownership, is related to the risk propensity of the owners/owning family/managers. As owning families try to retain as much control over the company as possible, while preserving the wealth for future generations, some studies argue that family firms are less prone to internationalize, and find this supported in their data (Donckels & Fröhlich, 1991; Fuentes-Lombardo & Fernandez-Ortiz, 201; Gallo et al., 2004; Okoroafo, 19990). In contrast to this view, another group of authors finds that FB owners are more prone to risk than their non-FB counterparts, as they are more entrepreneurial and have more support from their surrounding environment when dealing with risks related to the decision to internationalize the business (e.g., Calabrò & Mussolino, 2011; Chen, 2011; Zahra, 2003).
Family Involvement
The most popular measure of family involvement is the percentage of family members within the management or in the board of directors. The findings concerning this type of involvement are mixed, but predominantly negative (e.g., Casillas & Acedo, 2005; Cerrato & Piva, 2010; Olivares-Mesa & Cabrera-Suárez, 2006; Sciascia & Mazzola, 2008; Yunshi, Lin, & Kuei-Yang, 2011). When the CEO is also part of the owning family, the level of internationalization is supposedly positively influenced, with the notion that the length of tenure turns this effect around, meaning that longer tenures lead to less internationalization (Zahra, 2005). Overall, there seems to be a gap between quantitative empirical studies that use comparatively crude measures for the assessment of family involvement and highly qualitative case studies. Both types of analysis create valuable insights, but especially the quantitative studies lack some sophistication concerning measures of family involvement, thus making it difficult to deduct strong statements related to the influence of the family on the businesses internationalization. To address the heterogeneity of family firms concerning ownership and influence of the family, recent publications from Arregle et al. (2012), as well as Sciascia et al. (2012a) and Calabrò et al. (2012), conclude that external influences in the board of directors and also within the ownership of the firm increases its internationalization.
Long-Term Orientation
Another important factor of family influence is the long-term orientation of the FB, which is supposed to have a positive effect on internationalization (Claver et al., 2008, 2009), as sustainable growth across borders helps strengthen the business in the long run. An opposing force to this was found in the regional orientation of some family firms. As members of the owning family usually have strong personal local network ties, FBs are keen to invest locally. Although export measures remain relatively unaffected by this regional orientation, foreign direct investments suffer. Banalieva and Eddleston (2011) differentiate between family and nonfamily leadership and find that with family leadership, a stronger home region focus can be a profitable strategy, whereas if the firm has a more global strategic focus, external leadership is the better choice for family firms (Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011).
Strategic alliances and joint ventures seem less attractive for FBs, unless they involve another family business as the counterpart (Boyd, Goto, & Hollensen, 2010; Fuentes-Lombardo & Fernandez-Ortiz, 2010; Swinth & Vinton, 1993). In the latter case, the common long-term orientation between the partners helps create trust relationships. Overall, the evidence concerning long-term orientation is quite inconclusive.
Internationalization Processes
Concerning the overall process of venturing into foreign markets, most studies support the Uppsala stage model from Johanson and Vahlne (1977). Thus, family firms start their internationalization with exporting activities into countries with low psychological and geographical distance, and then incrementally, as knowledge and resources accumulate, expand into more remote markets (Claver et al., 2007; Kontinen & Ojala, 2010b; Olivares-Mesa & Cabrera-Suárez, 2006). Another common finding of the analyzed studies is that FBs generally also follow the suggestions laid down within Dunning’s eclectic paradigm (Erdener & Shapiro, 2005; Shapiro et al., 2003; Zahra, 2003). Depending on the different ownership, internalization, and locational advantages, different types of entry modes are chosen, with foreign direct investments being the one with the highest commitment. The investigation of Pinho (2007) though finds no influence of different levels of ownership on the market entry mode choice. Overall, as mentioned above, it can be summarized that FBs tend to choose foreign market entry modes that do not threaten their independence. Although export is the most popular form, strategic alliances and joint ventures seem to be avoided, as they not only require resources but also the relinquishment of control. This aloofness is turned around when the involved partner is another FB, because of shared values concerning trust, loyalty, and continuity (Fuentes-Lombardo & Fernandez-Ortiz, 2010; Swinth & Vinton, 1993).
Some studies show that the presence of subsequent generations in the business was found to be almost entirely positive on internationalization. As new generations seek to enter the business, they either create “space” for themselves through foreign subsidiaries or generally try to foster the business through international expansion (Fernández & Nieto, 2005; Menéndez-Requejo, 2005; Okoroafo & Perryy, 2010). However, other studies indicate no impact of higher generational involvement on internationalization, an effect that can be explained by the increasing size of the businesses throughout generations and therefore diluted influence of single generations on operations (Okoroafo & Koh, 2010; Westhead & Howorth, 2006). The literature on international entrepreneurship suggests that some FBs have strong growth episodes, triggered by new incoming generations (Bell, McNaughton, & Young, 2001; Bell, McNaughton, Young, & Crick, 2003; Graves & Thomas, 2008). These types of firms are called born-again global and represent a different type of internationalization process. Yet evidence on this phenomenon is scarce (Calabrò & Mussolino, 2011; Graves & Thomas, 2004).
Relational/Network Perspectives
Some studies in this review suggest that FBs are able to compensate most of their weaknesses regarding internationalization through family-specific resources. Central elements in this context were more qualitative factors (resources) like trust, altruism, and social capital (e.g., Calabrò & Mussolino, 2011; Segaro, 2010; Zahra, 2003). These factors can positively influence relationships within the family (e.g., conflict management, faster decision-making processes, shared and participative vision of the internationalization process, etc.), but also relationships of the owning-family with its environment, including FB managers from outside the family, customers, business partners, governmental institutions, as well as other stakeholders.
Another central finding is that it is possible to overcome the problem of lacking financial resources and competence by acquiring needed resources through network relationships (Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, & Peng, 2005). Network ties between firms as well as ties between individuals (e.g., entrepreneurs) thus play an important role in pursuing international opportunities (Brydon & Dana, 2011; Byrom & Lehman, 2009; Crick et al., 2006; Wright & Nasierowski, 1994; Mustafa & Chen, 2010). However, knowledge about the role of networks in the internationalization process of a family firm appears to be still limited (Kontinen & Ojala, 2011b, 2012b).
Resources and Capabilities View
The financial resources of FBs are found to be lower compared with non-FBs, caused by a certain reluctance to over-lever the company with debt and become too dependent on banks, or to sell equity in order to raise fresh funds. This lack of financial firepower, if present, was found to have a negative impact on internationalization efforts (Graves & Thomas, 2008). Concerning the managerial capabilities and internationalization knowledge of family members working in the business, the dominating view in the literature at hand is that they are underdeveloped (e.g., Graves & Thomas, 2004; Okoroafo, 1999). In combination with restricted financial resources, caused by the desire to stay independent from banks or other equity holders, the lack of expertise in international management has a negative impact on the internationalization of FBs (Graves & Thomas, 2008; Thomas & Graves, 2005). This effect can be exacerbated by paternalism, nepotism, personalism, and fragmentation tendencies (Tsang, 2002).
Where Should We Go? Discussion and Theoretical Integration
One main point that this review has highlighted is the inconclusiveness of findings related to the effects of family ownership/involvement on aspects of internationalization. We suggest that the existence of these contrasting results can be explained on two different levels. On the one hand, a lack of specific theory-integration and extension, especially related to paradigms from the international business literature. On the other hand, the absence of sophisticated measures for family influences on the firm and the omission of contingency factors in decision-making processes, which create heterogeneity among family firms. The following discussion targets these two levels by developing a comprehensive model. This model is introduced to theoretically structure the findings from the literature review, connect them along the internationalization process of a family firm, and reconcile them by adopting a different theoretical perspective. Furthermore, the theoretical framework is the basis for the suggestion of future research avenues provided in the concluding section.
Theoretical Considerations
Recent research efforts that aim at assessing family firm heterogeneity heavily rely on the concept of socioeconomic wealth as a guiding theoretical lens (Berrone et al., 2012; Cennamo, Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Martí, Menéndez-Requejo, & Rottke, 2012). SEW aims at capturing and structuring the intertwinement of the owner-family with the business. SEW is the “single most important feature of a family firm’s essence that separates it from other organizational forms” (Berrone et al., 2012, p. 3). The initiators of the concept (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011) argue that family principals (family business owners) use SEW as one of their central reference points, if not the only one. This model suggests that “family firms are typically motivated by, and committed to, the preservation of their SEW, referring to nonfinancial aspects or ‘affective endowments’ of family owners” (Berrone et al., 2012, p. 259). The socioemotional endowment is conceptualized in broad terms to capture the stock of affect-related value that a family derives from its controlling position in a particular firm (Berrone et al., 2012). In this formulation, the preservation of SEW is the most important objective for family business owners, and gains or losses in SEW represent the pivotal frame of reference that family-controlled firms use to make major strategic choices and policy decisions (Berrone et al., 2012).
In the model that Gomez-Mejia et al. (2011) develop based on these assumptions, behavioral agency theory (Wiseman & Gomez-Mejia, 1998) as the main underlying theory of SEW provides some alternative explanations of the behaviors of family business principals as the main decision makers in a FB. Depending on the problem framing of the decision at hand, family business owners are in a “loss mode” or “gain mode” (Wiseman & Gomez-Mejia, 1998). The important notion here is that family principals are not generally risk averse or risk prone, but generally loss averse, and depending on the situation, willing to take great risks or no risks, always with SEW as their main reference point in mind. This means that to avoid losses of SEW, for example, in the situation of potential bankruptcy of the family firm, family business owners are more willing to take risks then their nonfamily business counterparts (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). The nonfinancial aspect of SEW in this case is more important than mere financial considerations. The latter finding is of high relevance when analyzing the research on family firm internationalization. One potential reason for the inconsistency of results in the research field, next to the reasons already mentioned above, is the crude assessment of SEW in combination with a lack of consideration of contingency factors, which determine if the main decision makers, in this case family principals, are in a loss or gain mode (Wiseman & Gomez-Mejia, 1998). The inconclusiveness of the findings described in our results section can be better explained by the explicit consideration of family firm heterogeneity, which the SEW concept is addressing. This heterogeneity is assessed via different levels of SEW endowment, different weighting of SEW dimensions and the problem framing of family decision makers. Furthermore, contingency factors that influence these three elements of the SEW concept are helping to capture variations between family firms (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). Because of these characteristics of the SEW framework, it will be used as the guiding theoretical lens for the following discussion related to family firm internationalization.
The internationalization of a business has various benefits for a firm: diversification of country-specific risks, reduction of dependence on home country–based suppliers and customers (Kogut, 1985), as well as plateau busting of turnover levels. These benefits ought to be attractive for family business owners, which usually have most of their wealth concentrated in the (one) family firm. Yet family firm owners might expect losses of SEW endowment associated with the engagement in international markets. These threats to SEW can be seen in the increased funding needs (potential dilution of family shareholdings), potential losses of international operations because of inexperience of owner-managers, subsequently the need for external management expertise (which also can lead to a dilution of family influence, hence a loss of SEW) to meet the high complexity and uncertainty of international ventures, and finally the necessity to adhere to foreign stakeholders (customers, institutions, suppliers), which also can lead to a loss of independence and SEW (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011; Gomez-Mejia, Makri, & Kintana, 2010).
We follow calls from Kontinen and Ojala (2010), Holt (2012), as well as Arregle et al. (2012), among many others, to further investigate internationalization processes of family firms. To deepen our understanding on the processes of family firm internationalization based on the findings in our literature sample, we rely on the revised Uppsala internationalization process model from Johanson and Vahlne (2009) as a general theoretical framework for two key reasons. First, our review of the literature has led us to the four literature clusters of family firm heterogeneity, internationalization processes, relational/network perspectives, and resources and capabilities view. These four clusters can be theoretically well integrated via the SEW framework (family firm heterogeneity) and the Uppsala framework, as the Uppsala framework directly considers processes, networks, and capabilities (learning). Second, this concept is chosen because it is rooted in a behavioral research tradition (Cyert & March, 1963, 1992). Other prominent models of internationalization, like the internalization theory (Buckley & Casson, 2009), transaction cost theory (Hennart, 1982), or the eclectic paradigm by Dunning (1980), are more embedded in an economical tradition and are mostly valid for all types of firms. At the same time, they leave less room for the integration of behavioral aspects, which we find more relevant for family business research. 7 The revised Uppsala model provides the most interfaces with the also more behavioral concept of SEW and it has the strongest process orientation compared with the other theories mentioned above. Furthermore, we complement the theory integration work of Moores (2009), by extending the resource-based view, agency theory, and organizational learning theory within our two frameworks of SEW and the Uppsala model.
The original Uppsala stage model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) proposes that firms incrementally internationalize their operations along an establishment chain and a psychic distance chain, meaning that increased knowledge (through experience) leads stepwise to higher commitment entry modes in psychologically more distant countries. More than 30 years later, the authors revisited their model, performing some major changes to the framework (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). The main adaption compared with their old model is the specific focus on networks and network relationships as the main drivers for firm internationalization. Based on the evidence from Coviello and Munro (1997), as well as Coviello (2006), Johanson and Vahlne (2009) conclude that “insidership” in networks is crucial for the internationalization process. This network model of internationalization assumes that a firm’s intention to venture abroad may be triggered and facilitated by the contacts in its existing networks (Coviello & Munro, 1997). Our literature review has shown that the adaption of this business network view is especially valuable when investigating family firms, as these often enter into new networks, creating new relationships to find a position in foreign markets in relation to foreign family firms (Fernández & Nieto, 2006; Kontinen & Ojala, 2011c; Yeung, 2000). These ties between family firms in different markets might act as bridges, facilitating venturing abroad (Johanson & Vahlne, 1990). In those networks, common interests and values encourage FBs to develop and maintain network contacts with each other leading to mutual benefits (Johanson & Vahlne, 2003; Kontinen & Ojala, 2012b). For family firms, issues like trust and commitment building within various types of networks are of special importance, most notably within the family network (Eddleston, Chrisman, Steier, & Chua, 2010), within the company (Zahra, Hayton, Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2008), and toward business partners (Cooper, Upton, & Seaman, 2005) as well as stakeholders (Zellweger & Nason, 2008). The business network view of internationalization therefore stresses that it is more important to overcome the “liability of outsidership” concerning networks rather than the “liability of foreignness” concerning psychic distance when entering foreign markets. Because of this network focus of the revised 2009 Uppsala model and the relevance of this focus for FB research, and the other benefits of the model mentioned above, it will be the theoretical fundament for the following discussion.
An Integrative Model of Family Firm Internationalization
Via the integration of SEW mechanics into the revised Uppsala model, complemented by the findings of our literature review, the subsequent remarks aim at developing an overarching picture of the internationalization processes of FBs. The questions of when and how family firms internationalize will be furthermore elaborated in the model. Figure 1 illustrates the model and its variables.
Integrative theoretical model for family firm internationalization.
In the framework of Johanson and Vahlne (2009), internationalization is described as a dynamic process, explained by “state” and “change” variables that affect each other continuously. Central prerequisite for the start of internationalization activities is knowledge about foreign markets and their respective networks. The most important subsets of this stock of knowledge are opportunities, which have to be recognized and exploited. Further subsets of the knowledge concept include needs, strategies, and capabilities. Johansen and Vahlne (2009) share the assumptions of the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), that resources are heterogeneous and that firm-specific resource bundles lead to value creation, independent from market conditions. Though, they add to this line of thought that exchange within a network enables a firm to acquire knowledge via its network partners and their resources, capabilities, and strategies. Next to knowledge, the second state variable is the network position, which captures the current overall commitment level of the firm within its various foreign networks. This variable manifests itself ultimately in the overall degree of internationalization. The state variables knowledge, opportunities, and network position are influenced by the change variables learning, creating, (knowledge and opportunities) and trust building. Although learning implies the day by day experiential learning, creating knowledge means proactively building up knowledge related to internationalization, most notably seeking opportunities. This is also related to trust building, which implies the establishment of network relationships and commitment to the relationships. The interactions between the processes of learning, opportunity creation, and trust building are an established stream of research, though more often the concepts of intellectual capital and social capital are being used (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The second change variable box in the proposed model is “relationship commitment decisions,” which influences the state variable network position and ultimately the form and degree of internationalization. It becomes evident that the Uppsala model, as broadly described above, provides many links between international management, entrepreneurship, and family business research, which will be elaborated hereafter.
Socioemotional Wealth Endowment
The concept of SEW can be used to extend the above-described Uppsala model specifically for family firms. The first variable that needs to be considered in our model is the overall degree of SEW endowment, which we integrated in the Uppsala model as a state variable (see Figure 1). This endowment is composed by five dimensions, which are “Family influence and control,” “Identification with the firm,” “Bonding social ties,” “Emotional attachment with the firm,” and “Renewal of family ties through dynastic succession” (Berrone et al., 2012). Most studies in our literature sample exclusively focus on family control and influence (e.g., Sciascia et al., 2012b), few on social capital (e.g., Kontinen & Ojala, 2012b) and the influence of incoming generations (Fernández & Nieto, 2005). The dimensions of emotional attachment and identification with the firm in the context of internationalization were not found in our literature sample. As we noted above, one of the main sources of the inconclusiveness of the findings in this review is the insufficient consideration of FB heterogeneity. We suggest that one first remedy for this could be a more sophisticated assessment of SEW, meaning that either more than one, or maybe all dimensions of SEW have to be assessed, and with them the overall degree of SEW endowment as the main denominator of family firm distinctiveness. This way the effect of individual dimensions can also be better isolated, as the positive and negative effects of SEW dimensions might cancel each other out (Cennamo et al., 2012; Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2012).
Contingency Factor: Attainment Discrepancy
Besides the overall degree of SEW endowment, the next important aspect in our model are contingency factors that influence the effect that this endowment has on the tendency to protect it. This proclivity to protect SEW endowment is viewed as a change factor in our model, and it describes the degree to which family principals act differently than nonfamily managers, as SEW wealth is their main reference point. Determining for this difference in behavior is the current problem framing of the family principals, already distinguished above into gain and loss mode. In which mode the family principal is framing the decision-making problem of firm internationalization depends on the perceived attainment discrepancy in relation to the individual goals and (SEW) reference point. If the current firm performance is below aspirations, for example, the firm is close to bankruptcy, SEW endowment is at risk and family principals act in a loss mode, meaning that they are willing to take more risks than nonfamily principals to improve the situation. If performance is above aspirations, family principals act in a gain mode problem-framing, meaning that they are more risk averse than nonfamily principals, as they fear losses of SEW more than they embrace potential earnings from internationalization. This logic is theoretically (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011) and also empirically supported in recent studies in our sample (Arregle et al., 2012; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2010). Additionally, this logic has recently found strong empirical support in a study by Chrisman and Patel (2012). Although they focus on R&D investments as the strategic decision variable instead of internationalization, we suggest that these behavioral agency theory mechanics also apply for internationalization, making the contingency factor attainment discrepancy a very important source of family firm heterogeneity.
Contingency Factors: Firm Size, Family Stage, Ownership, and Governance Structure
The contingency factor firm size implies that the SEW endowment can vary in different ways as the firm grows. Increasing firm size can lead to a reduction of family influence on the firm, as more external know-how (managers) are needed to run the business, thus leading to a reduction of the SEW dimension “family influence and control” (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011). At the same time, other dimensions like identification, emotional attachment, and the desire for dynastic succession might increase as the firm grows. If SEW endowment grows with the firm, the more extreme will be the reactions resulting from the different decisions framings of gain and loss, leading to a strong aversion toward the risks of internationalization or high-risk inclination, respectively.
Another important contingency factor in our model is the family stage, which refers to the number of generations that already have had or have ownership in the firm, and the overall size of the family, ranging from founder-owner managed firms and ending with family dynasties (Gersick, Davis, McCollom Hampton, & Lansberg, 1997). This factor is strongly interwoven with the contingency factors ownership and governance structure. The influence of the family on the business depends on how the family influences the decision processes in the firm (Siebels & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2011). Indeed, some studies suggest that a critical determinant of a firm’s ability to successfully deal with the complexity arising from international operations is its governance structure (Siebels & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2011; Strange, Filatotchev, Buck, & Wright, 2009). Furthermore, the role of the board of directors (Calabrò et al., 2009; Gallo & Pont, 1996; Gallo & Sveen, 1991; Patel, Pieper, & Hair, 2012), its composition (Sanders & Carpenter, 1998), and the existence of trust relationships between board members and the CEO (Westphal, 1999) have weighed a lot in the dialogue on the relationships between FBs’ (as well non-FBs) governance and internationalization. Moreover, governance mechanisms may play different roles in different kinds of family-owned firms (e.g., micro, small, and medium-sized considering their number of employees) and this might impact in different ways their degree of internationalization (Calabrò & Mussolino, 2011). This aspect seems quite interesting given the discussion of “threshold firms” (Gedajlovic, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2004), where the increasing formalization of the growing firm puts demands of more formal governance mechanisms instead of mechanisms based on unwritten rules, trust, and expectations about each other’s actions. Although research on the ownership structure and its effect on family firm internationalization can be seen as the most advanced line of research in our literature sample, only recent findings were able to explain some of the inconclusiveness in the existing literature concerning the influence of ownership structures on internationalization outcomes (Arregle et al., 2012; Calabrò et al., 2012; Holt, 2012; Sciascia et al., 2012b). We argue that the governance structure determines the SEW preservation tendency to a great extent, specifically external parties in the ownership and the board ought to reduce the extent to which a SEW preservation logic drives internationalization decisions.
Uppsala Process Changes
While the above-mentioned contemplations focused on the general SEW mechanics and their impact on internationalization processes, the following arguments focus on specific internationalization issues guided by our model. In family firms, relationship commitment decisions and the processes of learning as well as trust building are all supposedly heavily influenced by SEW preservation contemplations. First, SEW preservation considerations of family firm principals influence the type and speed of learning related to internationalization knowledge. If the family principal is in a “gain” mode concerning his/her SEW endowment, which can be seen as the standard state of mind for a family firm owner (Berrone et al., 2012), experiential learning plays a more important role than learning through the acquisition of knowledge (Kuo, Kao, Chang, & Chiu, 2012). Satisficing rather than optimizing tendencies of family principals lead to a certain unwillingness to learn about international growth opportunities (Okoroafo & Koh, 2010). Furthermore, to get family firm owners to overcome their fear of SEW wealth loss, higher levels of knowledge are necessary in order to remove uncertainties of internationalization outcomes. Therefore, family firms tend to internationalize slower than nonfamily firms, as they accumulate knowledge slower and need more of it to take the first or next step of internationalization (Gallo & Sveen, 1991). The same SEW mechanics apply for the use of financial resources for growth through internationalization. It has been found that family firm principals are reluctant to devote these resources to internationalization projects because of SEW sustainment desires, as they are less willing to increase debt ratios, they are conservative toward equity investors and prefer larger financial reserves for contingencies (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011; Graves & Thomas, 2008; Kontinen & Ojala, 2010b). The effect of SEW preservation tendencies also affects actions of trust building for the creation of stronger or new network positions. Because of the desire to maintain control over the firm and safeguard SEW endowment, family firm owners are reluctant to enter new networks (Basly, 2007; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007), which can help them nurture their internationalization, also by access to knowledge and resources of network partners (Bhaumik et al., 2010). This reluctance to engage in specific networks can also slow down or completely inhibit internationalization. Family firm principals though might be able to compensate this negative effect via their rich social capital (Kontinen & Ojala, 2011c). This social capital, which includes well-established long-term relationships with various stakeholder groups, especially customers, can help FBs to better overcome liabilities of foreignness’ and outsidership than their nonfamily counterparts. Another deviation from the classic internationalization process of the Uppsala model with respect to family firms can be seen in the finding that family firm owners prefer to enter network relationships with other family firm owners (Swinth & Vinton, 1993). An establishment of such relationships can also lead to faster episodes of internationalization, as trust and shared values reduce fears of SEW loss. The question of which tendency prevails, the reluctance to enter networks, or the proclivity to engage in new trust-based relationships depends—next to classical economic reasoning—on the contingency factors and their effects which have been discussed above.
Ultimately, SEW preservation tendencies can indirectly, through lacking knowledge and network positions (and therefore lacking opportunity recognition), or directly, impact on relationship commitment decisions, which manifest themselves in different dimensions of internationalization, for example, the degree of international commitment (Claver et al., 2009), the geographic and cultural dispersion (Arregle et al., 2012), or the pace of the internationalization (Lin, 2012). A topic that has not been researched so far concerning internationalization outcomes is to what extent the different international operations are integrated into the headquarters. This topic is relevant because it determines to what extent foreign subsidiaries are actually interacting with the core family business and to what degree the family firm specific characteristics spillover on the foreign subsidiaries. Another seemingly missing aspect of internationalization processes that is underrepresented in the literature is resource seeking internationalization of family firms (Anwar & Tariq, 2011), so to what degree family firms engage in international markets to accesses location-specific resources like production knowledge in clusters, cheaper labor, and scarce raw materials. The Uppsala model delineated above allows for the consideration of market and resource seeking behaviors of family firms.
A novelty of the contemporary Uppsala model is the specific consideration of the internationalization pace and form, meaning that phenomena like born-global or born-again global firms (Bell et al., 2001; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994) are also being explained via network relationships, in this case networks that existed previous to firm foundation. This theoretic approach is also relevant for the internationalization of family firms within the concept of born-again global firms (Graves & Thomas, 2008; Kontinen & Ojala, 2012a). This is especially relevant when family principals are in a loss mode related to their SEW endowment, meaning that they fear SEW loss so much that they become more prone to take risks, compared with nonfamily firm managers. In this case, they are expected to be willing to skip steps of the usual learning process and also are more open to engage in different types of networks, with the consequence that they will internationalize faster. This behavior can lead to hasty episodes of internationalization. Also incoming generations, which might enter the business in a loss mode concerning SEW, can trigger these episodes (Fernández & Nieto, 2005). Next to the specific consideration of the international entrepreneurship findings, Johanson and Vahlne (2009) also recognize the importance of the “effectuation process” (Sarasvathy, 2001), as internationalization can be viewed as a form of corporate entrepreneurship, also with high degrees of uncertainty (Andersson, 2011). The commonalities between the effectuation process and the Uppsala model can be seen in comparable environmental characteristics, a limited amount of options, incremental development, and a focus on cooperative strategies (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). Nevertheless, Sarasvathy (2001) concentrates on actors and their characteristics, while the revised Uppsala model only implicitly considers them as the carriers of tacit knowledge, trust, commitment, and network relations.
The explanatory value of the proposed model lies in the specific consideration of SEW preservation attitudes of family firm owners within the processes of the Uppsala model. The inconclusiveness of findings in the field of family firm research can partially be explained by the omitted consideration of family firm heterogeneity, potentially measured and structured by SEW dimensions, different risk preferences depending on the SEW endowment, and the lacking attention toward contingency factors in the process.
Conclusion and Future Research Directions
One of the aims of this study was to provide an updated and complete assessment of relevant academic articles on family business internationalization by taking a broad perspective in the selection process. Therefore, it provides a complete overview of the existing literature in the domain of family firm internationalization to the best of our knowledge. Furthermore, after showing the variety and complexity of debated and still open issues and classifying them into four distinct clusters (family firm heterogeneity, internationalization processes, relational/network perspectives, and resources and capabilities view), we have developed an integrative theoretical model, combining the frameworks of SEW and the network view based revised Uppsala model, which is an attempt to incorporate more theoretical knowledge from the field of international management into the domain of family business research. Our framework reconciles some of the inconsistencies of previous research by showing how SEW contemplations affect the initiation of internationalization activities in family firms. The question of when family firms internationalize is addressed with the considerations about triggers from outside the family (external managers and board members), incoming generations as well as network-relationships, and the overcoming of the “liability of outsidership” in relation to foreign networks. SEW preservation tendencies are driven by the problem framing of family principals, and if they perceive their family wealth to be at risk, they are keen to internationalize the firm in order to reach their aspiration levels. These preservation tendencies also affect the how question in relation to the internationalization process of family firms. We argued that the empirical findings, which found that family firms internationalize slower, but in the long-run to a similar degree than nonfamily firms, can be explained by the reluctance of family principals to build up relationships in foreign networks and the higher levels of knowledge that are necessary for family principals before committing to international markets. The dynamic process of internationalization, as described in the Uppsala framework from Johanson and Vahlne (2009), can also be accelerated by family ownership and influence, when family firm owners perceive their SEW to be at risk.
Despite the huge attempt to fill the gap of theory integration and extension to understand behaviors of internationalizing family firms, we believe that much more needs to be done in order to deepen our knowledge on this topic. In line with this, an interesting future research direction seems to be a deeper investigation of how the overall degree of SEW endowment and the individual dimensions of this cumulative endowment influence the process of family firm internationalization. Furthermore, additional investigations and integrations of contingency factors such as “attainment discrepancy” in the analysis of family firms’ internationalization might shed new light on how this contingency factor (via the SEW preservation tendency) impacts on the internationalization processes of family firms. Interesting insights might also emerge from further investigations of the relationships between family firms’ governance structures and mechanisms and their degree of internationalization. Some very appealing open questions seem to be: How do different family ownership structures (concentrations) influence the overall degree of SEW endowment and its influence on the process of family firm internationalization? And, to what extent do different voluntary and mandatory governance structures influence different SEW dimensions and the subsequent internationalization processes as an outcome?
Our study has offered the integration of two different (but complementary) theoretical lens in order to provide and integrative model being able to explain the variety of family firms international behaviors. One important element in the model (provided by the revisited version of the Uppsala model) is the position in networks as a main accelerator of international performance. In line with this theoretical insights some interesting research directions need to be further explored in order to be able to understand to what extent the processes of learning and creating trust relationships are influenced by SEW preservation considerations of family firm principals and how does this affect the network position and the knowledge base of the internationalizing family firm.
Last but not least, a deeper knowledge about behaviors of internationalizing family firms might give something back to the actual discussion in the international business domain on the phenomenon of born-again global firms in the sense that FBs are special and “unique” research settings that offer the opportunity to investigate one specific (business or family) phenomenon along an extraordinary life span through the involvement of new generations in the business and in the family systems. Therefore, we believe that further investigations of the role of incoming generations in relation to the international behavior of family firms might give something back to the research domain of international entrepreneurship. Moreover, it seems also quite promising the investigation of whether and to what extent SEW endowment and its preservation tendencies change with incoming generations and what is the effect of this change on the internationalization process of the family firm? Does it trigger or drive the process of born-(again)-global episodes?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
