42 European J. International Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 The impact of finance and governance on the internationalisation modes of family firms Markus Dick* Department of Finance, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Christine Mitter Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Urstein Sued 1, 5412 Puch/Salzburg, Austria Email: [email protected] Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller Institute of Management Control and Consulting, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria Email: [email protected] Helmut Pernsteiner Department of Finance, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria Email: [email protected] Abstract: By drawing on the resource-based view, this study explores the influence of a firm’s finance and governance structure on its internationalisation mode using a sample of Austrian and German medium- and large-sized family firms. While medium equity levels, sophisticated financial management and external ownership foster higher levels of international activity and foreign direct investment, they do not affect a family firm’s decision to export. This finding suggests that the influential power of finance and governance variables depends on the mode of internationalisation and the capital needs and other resource requirements related to it. Moreover, our results imply that certain finance and governance factors mitigate the risks associated with internationalisation, particularly higher internationalisation modes, and can therefore spur these international activities. In contrast to previous research, however, the empirical analyses do not show any influence of non-family managers. Keywords: family firm; internationalisation modes; capital structure; external ownership; non-family managers; financial sophistication; exporting; FDI. Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 43 Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Dick, M., Mitter, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. and Pernsteiner, H. (2017) ‘The impact of finance and governance on the internationalisation modes of family firms’, European J. International Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.42–64. Biographical notes: Markus Dick is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Finance of the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Christine Mitter is a Professor of Management Accounting and Finance at the Business Administration Program of the University of Applied Sciences in Salzburg, Austria, and a Lecturer of Management Accounting at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller is a Full Professor and holds the Chair of Management Control and Consulting at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Helmut Pernsteiner is a Full Professor and holds the Chair of Corporate Finance at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria. Currently, he serves as President of the Academic Senate at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz. 1 Introduction With intensifying globalisation, a greater number of family firms (FFs) face the question of whether and in what manner they should internationalise their business. While there is agreement in the literature that – compared with non-family firms (NFFs) – FFs internationalise differently, research is still inconclusive as to whether being an FF encourages or impedes internationalisation (Pukall and Calabrò, 2014). Consequently, there is a need to reconcile the heterogeneous findings of previous studies (Merino et al., 2014) and to explore in detail how the particularities of FFs precisely affect their internationalisation (Kontinen and Ojala, 2010; Arregle et al., 2012). Internationalisation aspirations can only be implemented if the required resources, such as financial means, know-how or human capital, are available (Peng, 2001). Furthermore, going abroad is related to an increase in risk exposure as a result of higher uncertainty, complexity and foreignness (Lu and Beamish, 2001; Hitt et al., 2006). Accessibility of resources and their management as well as the risk profile of a firm depend, among other things, on the actors that own and head the organisation. In this respect, FFs differ from NFFs because of the family’s involvement in ownership and management, which results in distinct governance and finance patterns (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). Thus, we base our paper on the resource-based view (RBV) (Wernerfeldt, 1984; Barney, 1991) and the FF’s propensity to take risks (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2007; Hiebl, 2013). The finance and governance structures of FFs and their impact on internationalisation have been scarcely or insufficiently researched thus far. Although internationalisation requires substantial capital outlays (Calabrò et al., 2013) and overcoming financial constraints is considered to be a major determinant of a firm’s ability to internationalise (Bellone et al., 2010), how finance influences the international activities of FFs has not 44 M. Dick et al. been analysed explicitly. Concerning the family’s impact on governance, some studies highlight a positive influence of family ownership and family management on internationalisation (e.g. Zahra, 2003), while others have revealed that non-family owners and/or managers enhance FF internationalisation (e.g. Claver et al., 2009; Arregle et al., 2012; Calabrò et al., 2013). Others (e.g. Merino et al., 2014) have found no significant influence of family ownership and family management on internationalisation. Hence, the precise effects of FFs’ distinct financing and governance structures on their internationalisation must still be elucidated in detail. This paper will address this research gap. In addition to the influence of the capital structure, we also analyse the role of financial sophistication. Regarding governance, we focus on non-family influence in terms of external equity and non-family managers. Part of the above-mentioned heterogeneity in findings can also be attributed to the fact that previous studies relied on different measures for internationalisation. Most focused on export (e.g. Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Calabrò et al., 2009; Calabrò and Mussolino, 2013), whereas few empirical analyses have addressed specific or higher levels of internationalisation (Claver et al., 2007; Claver et al., 2009) that might require different governance and finance conditions. By using survey data for medium-sized and large-sized Austrian and German FFs, we show that the impact of finance and governance on internationalisation depends on the chosen internationalisation mode. While a medium equity ratio, sophistication in financial management and non-family owners favour higher levels of international activity, especially foreign direct investment (FDI), they do not influence less capitaland resource-intensive export activities. Moreover, non-family managers do not seem to influence international activities at all. This study is based on cross-sectional data, and we are therefore unable to rule out potential reverse causality issues completely. However, our results are highly relevant for both academia and practice. First, our study is the first that comprehensively analyses the effect of finance on the internationalisation mode of FFs. By demonstrating the importance of an FF’s capital structure choices and its financial sophistication for internationalisation, new evidence is provided on the link between financial resources and internationalisation to international business research in general and family business research in particular. Second, by explicitly taking into account different modes of internationalisation, we complement previous studies and can explain some of their mixed findings concerning the impact of FF governance. We thus shed light on how the family’s involvement in various governance dimensions influences different modes of international activity. Third, we add to the empirical literature by focusing on two countries (Austria and Germany) that both show distinct finance and governance structures, such as a high prevalence of FFs (Neubauer, 2003), a two-tier board model and a bank-based financial system (e.g. Demirgüç-Kunt and Levine, 1999). Furthermore, the findings offer recommendations to managers and owners of FFs on how certain financing and governance structures can be more or less helpful in developing their internationalisation strategy. The paper is organised as follows. An overview of the theoretical background is provided in the next section, after which hypotheses are developed. Section 4 outlines the methodology and describes the sample and the variables used. The results of our empirical study are presented in Section 5 and discussed in Section 6. We conclude with the implications of our findings and their limitations. Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 2 45 Theoretical background 2.1 Internationalisation ‘Internationalisation’ refers to a process through which firms expand to other countries and increase international involvement. Going international and expanding abroad requires specific resources (Peng, 2001), such as financial, managerial and logistic resources as well as knowledge (Calabrò et al., 2013). According to the RBV, resources are thus the drivers of internationalisation (Andersen and Kheam, 1998). Internationalisation and especially higher levels of internationalisation increase complexity and uncertainty because firms are confronted with a greater diversity of cultures, competitors, customers and regulations, as well as localised and specific knowledge (Sanders and Carpenter, 1998; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2010). Thus, an increase in risk exposure will follow. Starting business in a foreign market, the so-called foreign market entry, can take several forms, ranging from exporting to the establishment of partially or wholly owned subsidiaries (FDI). The entry modes differ in terms of the resources required, the risk involved and the degree of control (Claver et al., 2007). Higher stages of foreign market entry require more human and financial resources. At the same time, they are associated with higher levels of control, risk and complexity. A firm’s internationalisation strategies can change over time so that the current mode of market cultivation does not necessarily coincide with the initial foreign market entry. Moreover, companies can simultaneously employ different strategies on their various international markets. 2.2 Characteristics and governance of family firms Although the literature does not agree on a generally accepted definition of the term ‘family firm’, there is broad agreement that the family’s involvement – interpreted mostly as family involvement in ownership and management – makes an FF unique (Chua et al., 1999). This involvement leads to distinct structures, goals and behaviours that culminate in unique resources and capabilities called ‘familiness’ (Habbershon and Williams, 1999) and can thus serve to delineate FFs and NFFs (Pearson et al., 2008). Compared with NFFs, FFs exhibit unique human and social capital characterised by close and trusting relationships within the family and with employees, customers and other stakeholders (Miller et al., 2008). This can lead to an unusual commitment to the firm and high levels of loyalty (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). As a result of their concern for continuity and subsequent generations, FFs are oriented towards the long term (Claver et al., 2009). They exhibit not only more patience but also more caution and risk aversion when making investments. Owing to a certain degree of overlap in ownership and management, FFs display specific governance structures. When trust and family bonds are high, mutually shared objectives reduce governance costs. However, internal conflicts might be exacerbated because of altruism or inefficient management practices as well as diverging goals and preferences of various owner groups (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003; Schulze et al., 2003; Singla et al., 2014). 46 M. Dick et al. 2.3 Financial characteristics of family firms FFs show distinct financial characteristics. Family owners, for example, face excessive risk (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997) as they tend to hold undiversified portfolios owing to large investments in their business (e.g. Dreux, 1990; Anderson et al., 2003). Furthermore, they derive several benefits from family control and stress continuity (Mishra and McConaughy, 1999). Thus, FFs might pursue (financial) strategies focusing on long-term firm survival instead of strictly adhering to shareholder wealth maximisation (Anderson et al., 2003). These characteristics are supposed to influence their decision-making, including capital structure choices. On the one hand, trade-off theory suggests that firms choose an optimal capital structure by balancing the benefits of debt (tax shields) against its negative effects (costs of financial distress) (e.g. Bradley et al., 1984; Myers, 1984). Because of their undiversified wealth and the benefits they enjoy from family control, family members seem to be especially endangered by financial distress (Andres, 2008; Mishra and McConaughy, 1999). Since leverage increases the probability of financial distress, FFs can reduce their risk exposure by maintaining lower debt levels. On the other hand, FFs seem to follow a pecking order (Myers, 1984; Myers and Majluf, 1984) when issuing securities. They prefer internal sources of finance to risky debt, as they fear constraints in their freedom of action due to accountability vis-á-vis lenders (Matthews et al., 1994; Gallo et al., 2004). This could imply higher equity ratios. Once internal capital is exhausted, they rely on debt instead of external equity, because external investors would bring about a greater loss of independence and control (Poutziouris, 2001; Tappeiner et al., 2012). This could induce higher leverage. 2.4 Internationalisation of family firms Despite the heterogeneity of extant studies on FF internationalisation, they can be clustered grossly in two strands depending on the main perspectives used to capture and explain the influence of the family on the firm’s internationalisation (Merino et al., 2014): one stream bases its research efforts on the unique resources resulting from the family’s involvement in governance and therefore the RBV, whereas the other research line stresses the risk aversion of FFs. Hence, we also apply these two argumentation lines to explain the particularities of FF internationalisation in the following and to develop our hypotheses in the next section. From the perspective of the RBV, FFs might not possess the necessary financial and personnel resources to implement internationalisation strategies (Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Graves and Thomas, 2008; Claver et al., 2009). However, certain characteristics of FFs might spur their internationalisation. Their specific governance structures, which are characterised by a certain degree of overlap in ownership and management and mutually shared objectives (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003), enable more informal and faster decisionmaking (Segaro, 2012) and allow them to react quickly to new international opportunities (Kontinen and Ojala, 2011; Mitter and Emprechtinger, forthcoming). This leads to more strategic flexibility to pursue international activities (Sirmon et al., 2008; Sciascia et al., 2012; Segaro, 2012). Moreover, the owners’ dedication and their long-term orientation result in stronger commitment to chosen strategies and allow their internationalisation more time to pay off (Zahra, 2003; Mitter and Emprechtinger, forthcoming). Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 47 Concerning the risk profile of FFs, one of the main consequences of family involvement in the business is risk aversion and conservatism (Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Claver et al., 2009; Merino et al., 2014). In particular, at high levels of family ownership and involvement in management and governance, family utility will be maximised when international activities are at low levels or forgone, as going abroad means taking risks with predominantly their own money and losing control (Sciascia et al., 2012; Mitter et al., 2014a). This can make international strategies less appealing, make them rely on lower levels of market entry strategies and/or internationalise more slowly (e.g. Okoroafo, 1999; Graves and Thomas, 2008; Cesinger et al., 2014). However, some FFs were also found to internationalise rapidly (Graves and Thomas, 2008; Kontinen and Ojala, 2012) and may thus quickly draw on higher internationalisation modes, particularly when they consider internationalisation essential for firm survival (Sirmon et al., 2008) or go for wholly owned subsidiaries to maintain high ownership levels (Chang et al., 2014). Consequently, FFs can be more prone to risk and be riskaverse at the same time depending on several contingency factors (Zahra, 2003; Pukall and Calabrò, 2014). The impact of such contingency factors must still be explored to shed more light on the specifics of FF internationalisation. Two such particularities are an FF’s financing and governance structures, whose influence on internationalisation will be analysed more thoroughly in the following section. 3 Hypotheses development 3.1 Capital structure Internationalisation forms vary with respect to their associated risk and capital needs and thus the required resources. While export activities neither depend upon large investments nor are especially risky, FDI demands larger financial resources and implies a higher level of risk. Two important capital structure theories, the trade-off theory (e.g. Bradley et al., 1984) and the pecking order theory (e.g. Fama and French, 2002), suggest that the volatility of earnings and thus risk is positively related to the equity ratio. Consequently, higher (and therefore riskier) levels of internationalisation might be connected with a higher equity ratio than exporting. Moreover, Myers (1977) describes the ‘underinvestment’ problem, in which (highly) leveraged firms forego investments. Hence, leverage, particularly high leverage, is expected to have a negative effect on (international) investments (e.g. Aivazian et al., 2005; Doukas and Pantzalis, 2003; Park et al., 2013). Finally, the more conservative a family is, the more likely it will avoid external sources of finance that endanger its decision-making autonomy. Additionally, the more risk-averse the family, the more it will fear the risk of financial distress associated with leverage. Thus, the wish to maintain control and to protect the undiversified investment in the FF might lead to capital constraints, endangering future investment opportunities (Fama and Jensen, 1985; Mishra and McConaughy, 1999; Thomsen and Pedersen, 2000), including internationalisation. In particular, FFs controlled by risk-averse and conservative owners might thus rely on internal financing and accordingly show 48 M. Dick et al. high equity ratios. Nevertheless, they possess little capital that can be used for international activities, indicating a negative impact of a (very) high equity ratio on internationalisation in general and capital-intensive internationalisation modes such as FDI in particular. In summary, whereas the trade-off theory and the pecking order theory as well as the underinvestment problem indicate a positive effect of the equity ratio on internationalisation, the reliance on internal finance resulting from risk-aversion and conservatism suggests the opposite. Furthermore, the influence of the equity ratio on a particular internationalisation mode depends on the associated risks and capital needs. Thus, the impact of leverage on internationalisation in general and the chosen internationalisation mode in particular seems to be ambiguous. However, a firm’s capital structure appears to have an effect on its internationalisation mode. Therefore, we postulate: Hypothesis 1: The equity ratio influences the internationalisation mode of FFs. 3.2 External influence External influence in terms of non-family ownership and management can enrich the resource pool of FFs. Often the family’s capital will not suffice to promote internationalisation, especially capital-intensive steps. Empirical studies (Fernández and Nieto, 2005; George et al., 2005; Cerrato and Piva, 2012; Calabrò et al., 2015) suggest that non-family ownership makes internationalisation more likely. Such external investors not only contribute capital but also provide the FF with technologies, expertise or distribution channels that enable internationalisation (Fernández and Nieto, 2005). In the case of foreign shareholders in particular, their knowledge of foreign markets, international experience and business contacts can spur a firm’s international activities (Cerrato and Piva, 2012; Calabrò et al., 2015). Moreover, external owners can supply the FF with a network that provides easier access to resources (Di Giuli et al., 2011). The better and more diverse the resources available to a company are, the more likely it is to seize opportunities on international markets (Federico et al., 2009). Next to external equity investors, the management team represents an essential share of a firm’s resource pool. In contrast to family managers, who might not hold these positions owing to their qualifications (Schulze et al., 2003) and provide homogeneous skills (Corbetta and Salvato, 2004), non-family executives can provide the FF with access to valuable resources and thus drive internationalisation (Claver et al., 2009). Additionally, external managers seem to be more receptive to innovations and new strategies (Di Giuli et al., 2011; Calabrò and Mussolino, 2013), which can also facilitate internationalisation. Internationalisation, especially higher internationalisation modes, demands professional organisational structures (Muñoz-Bullón and Sánchez-Bueno, 2012; Calabrò and Mussolino, 2013) to better handle the increased levels of risk. External managers and shareholders seem to support such professionalisation (e.g. Di Giuli et al., 2011; Mitter et al., 2012; Tappeiner et al., 2012). Additionally, the risks related to internationalisation seem less severe for the FF because non-family owners’ capital investments are also at stake (Sciascia et al., 2012). Moreover, outside investors, particularly foreign Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 49 shareholders, bring expertise about foreign markets and internationalisation (Calabrò et al., 2013) and can thus lower the perceived risk of internationalisation. Based on these arguments, FFs with non-family shareholders and/or managers should be more inclined to internationalisation. Both can be seen as additional resources that spur the FF’s international endeavours as they bring expertise, knowledge, networks and technologies for internationalisation to the company and thus reduce the related risk. Since higher levels of internationalisation require more resources and carry more risk, non-family influence in ownership and management seems especially relevant for these higher internationalisation modes. Accordingly, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2: External ownership favours higher internationalisation modes of FFs. Hypothesis 3: External management favours higher internationalisation modes of FFs. 3.3 Sophisticated financial management Financial resources and financial sophistication are crucial for internationalisation. Cross-border activities impose higher requirements not only on financial reporting (Lee and Kwok, 1988) but also on capital budgeting, cash flow and working capital management (Czinkota et al., 2011). Even less resource-intensive exporting requires working capital to finance export operations (Griffith, 2011). Thus, the shortage of working capital has been identified as one central barrier to exporting (Leonidou, 2000; Leonidou, 2004). Optimising working capital should hence be even more important for higher internationalisation modes. Moreover, value-based management is considered a key concept for evaluating investment projects regarding their potential for shareholder value creation, and it provides management with the respective tools and techniques to implement value-creating strategies (Oxelheim and Wihlborg, 2003; Bausch et al., 2009). Consequently, it helps to professionalise the decision process for international investments, especially for higher and therefore both riskier and more capital-intensive internationalisation modes. FFs therefore also need to professionalise their financial management. However, most empirical evidence suggests a negative impact of family influence on a firm’s financial sophistication (e.g. Schmid et al., 2009; Di Giuli et al., 2011; Dick and Pernsteiner, 2015). Given that financial resources play a decisive role for internationalisation, financial sophistication should be highly important for FFs. By professionalising and thus optimising the capital employed through sophistication, FFs can improve their financial situation even if the financial endowment stays the same. Furthermore, sophisticated financial management allows FFs to better handle the risks associated with internationalisation. This should facilitate internationalisation, especially higher modes of internationalisation such as FDI, which are capital-intensive, riskier and impose particular requirements on a firm’s financial management. Thus, we hypothesise: Hypothesis 4: Sophistication in financial management leads to higher internationalisation modes of FFs. 50 4 M. Dick et al. Research design 4.1 Sample We conducted a cross-sectional survey among the CEOs of Austrian and Southern German companies with at least 50 employees using a standardised questionnaire. In 2009, we contacted 5406 Austrian companies and, in 2010, 5000 German companies in the states of Bavaria and Baden Württemberg.1 A total of 962 firms returned the questionnaire. Given that we aimed to understand the particularities of FF internationalisation better and to explore in depth the impact of various context factors on internationalisation, especially concerning finance and governance aspects, we confined our research to an FF sample. Since a family’s involvement in a business is most often interpreted as involvement in ownership and management (Chua et al., 1999; see Section 2.2), FFs were identified as companies where a family owns at least 50% of the shares and holds at least one management position. This definition is also in line with other studies on FF internationalisation (e.g. Graves and Thomas, 2006; Calabrò et al., 2009). After excluding incomplete questionnaires, NFFs, companies with fewer than 50 employees and those with less than EUR 2 m in sales, a total of 160 medium- and large-sized FFs (108 Austrian, 52 German) remained to form the sample of this study. Since we were unable to detect significant differences between the first third and the last third of the data set (Leslie, 1972; Fowler, 2009), a non-response bias was not an issue in our sample and the representativeness of the study was confirmed. 4.2 Variables 4.2.1 Dependent variables To capture the heterogeneity of international activities, we relied on a measure that allowed us to take into account different internationalisation modes. The level of internationalisation (INTLEVEL) is measured using an ordinal scale, the order of which indicates the increase in risk and resource requirements associated with the internationalisation mode: 0 stands for companies without internationalisation (or only import activity), 1 for exporting businesses, 2 for other international activities such as licensing, franchising or foreign distribution facilities that do not involve FDI and 3 for FDI (stake of ≥10% in a foreign firm). If a company simultaneously pursued different strategies of international market cultivation, it was assigned to the internationalisation mode that reflected its highest level of international activities. 4.2.2 Independent variables Equity ratio (EQUITY): This variable is operationalised by the percentage of equity over total capital drawing on the following categories: <0%, ≥0% and <10%, ≥10% and <20%, ≥20% and <30%, ≥30% and <40%, ≥40% and <50%, ≥50%. For the regression analyses, we created the variable EQUITY using the mid-points of each respective category, i.e. for the category ‘EQUITY ≥20% and <30%’, the mid-point 25% was used (e.g. Powers and Xie, 2008). Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 51 External ownership is measured by the percentage of the firm’s shares not held by family members. For our base regression models, we coded it into a dummy variable (EXTSHARE) with a value of 1 if the firm has external (non-family) shareholders and a value of 0 if it does not. For further analyses, we replaced EXTSHARE with the percentage of external ownership (PERCEXTSHARE). External managers (EXTMAN): A dummy variable is used, which is assigned a value of 1 if the firm has non-family executives or a value of 0 if it does not. Sophisticated financial management (SOPHFM) is operationalised as a dummy variable assigned a value of 1 if the FF focuses on both systematic working capital and value-based management and 0 otherwise. 4.2.3 Control variables Generation (GEN): Companies were asked which generation was currently leading the firm (‘first generation (founder)’, ‘second’, ‘third’ and ‘fourth generation’ and ‘fifth and subsequent generations’). We used the generation number as a metric variable, which is reasonable for ordinal variables consisting of at least five categories (Torra et al., 2006). Firm size was measured in terms of the firm’s sales turnover and labelled SALES. We used two binary dummy variables (‘sales ≥EUR 2 m and <EUR 10 m’ and ‘sales ≥EUR 10 m and <EUR 50 m’). Sales levels of EUR 50 m and above served as reference class. Industry: We used dummy variables representing the industry sectors ‘manufacturing industry’ (MANUF), ‘trade industry’ (TRADE), ‘service industry’ (SERVICE) and ‘other industries’ (OTHER). The ‘manufacturing industry’ served as reference class. 4.3 Methodology To test our hypotheses we ran ordered logit and logit models with robust standard errors. Model 1 is an ordered logit model that analyses the effect of finance and governance on the level of internationalisation. To investigate the single internationalisation modes in detail, we use logit models to compare FFs with and without FDI (Model 2), FFs undertaking FDI with only exporting FFs (Model 3) and finally FFs with exports as their highest mode of internationalisation with FFs without any international activity (Model 4). To analyse the effect of external ownership on internationalisation further, additional models were run. Significant Wald tests and – for the logit models – insignificant Hosmer–Lemeshow tests (see Tables 2 and 3) confirm the fit of our models. 5 Results 5.1 Descriptives and statistics Table 1 shows the mean values and standard deviations for our metric variables. For the dummy variables the respective numbers of cases are shown. Finally, the table also lists the correlations between the variables. There are no signs of (severe) multicollinearity, as all correlation coefficients are lower than 0.8 (e.g. Argyrous, 2011). INTLEVEL = 3 EQUITY EXTSHARE PERCEXTSHARE EXTMAN SOPHFM 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. –0.23 22 9 15. TRADE 16. SERVICE 17. OTHER –0.09 0.04 0.26 –0.19 –0.24 –0.06 0.33** 0.09 –0.21 –0.22 –0.06 –0.12 –0.21 0.00 –0.13 –0.10 0.17 –0.07 0.04 0.02 0.03 –0.07 –0.02 –0.13 –0.12 0.09 –0.10 0.24 0.17 0.08 0.20 0.13 4 –0.02 0.11 0.09 –0.05 –0.07 5 –0.05 0.11 0.06 –0.15 0.03 0.02 0.06 –0.05 –0.01 –0.05 0.33** 0.10 0.02 0.03 –0.03 0.00 0.13 0.18 –0.07 –0.29* –0.34** –0.03 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.07 –0.04 –0.21 3 SD = standard deviation; Ca. = number of cases per dummy variable. #p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. 29 14. MANUF Note: 42 100 13. SALES 50 m 81 23 61 21 12. SALES 10 m & < 50 m 1.08 –0.20 2 47 –0.40*** –0.46*** 15 37 2.51 3.06 10.27 1 54 –0.44*** 44 SD Ca. 37.06 23.85 Mean 11. SALES 2 m & < 10 m 10. GEN INTLEVEL = 1 INTLEVEL = 2 2. INTLEVEL = 0 –0.09 –0.05 0.06 0.03 0.19 –0.13 –0.04 0.08 0.05 0.30* 0.77*** 6 –0.07 0.00 0.08 –0.03 0.18 –0.13 –0.03 0.10 –0.02 0.27# 7 –0.02 –0.09 –0.04 0.10 0.29* 0.00 –0.31** 0.06 0.19 8 0.05 0.10 –0.01 –0.09 0.16 –0.06 –0.10 –0.06 9 –0.09 –0.22 –0.04 0.23 –0.02 0.07 –0.07 10 12 –0.13 0.17 –0.07 0.00 0.13 –0.04 –0.05 0.01 –0.33** –0.60*** –0.56*** 11 –0.61*** 14 15 –0.02 –0.32** 16 –0.11 –0.10 –0.11 –0.52*** –0.19 0.12 –0.01 13 Table 1 1. 52 M. Dick et al. Descriptive statistics and correlations Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 53 5.2 Regression results Table 2 reports our regression results. Model 1 shows that the equity ratio (EQUITY) exhibits a positive effect on the level of internationalisation, whereas the quadratic term EQUITY² has a negative effect. These results support an inverted U-shaped influence with the highest level of internationalisation at medium equity ratios. To investigate the single internationalisation modes further, we compare FFs with and without FDI (Model 2) and FFs undertaking FDI with those with exports as their highest internationalisation mode (Model 3). Both models also yield comparable results. Finally, for Model 4, which compares FFs with exports as their highest mode of internationalisation with FFs without any international activity, we could find neither significant effects for the equity ratio nor its quadratic term.2 Thus, Hypothesis 1 receives only partial support. While a firm’s capital structure is important for higher internationalisation modes, it does not impact export activities. Concerning external ownership, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed in Models 1, 2 and 3. The presence of external (non-family) shareholders leads to higher levels of internationalisation and a higher probability of FDI in general and compared with exporting. However, once again, we do not find a significant impact for exporting in Model 4. Table 2 Regression results for Models 1–4 Model 1 EQUITY EQUITY² EXTSHARE EXTMAN SOPHFM GEN SALES ≥ 2 m & < 10 m SALES ≥ 10 m & < 50 m TRADE SERVICE Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 INTLEVEL FDI FDI V. EXP. EXP. V. NON-INT. 0.0752* 0.157*** 0.165** –0.0125 (0.0295) (0.0472) (0.0577) (0.0422) –0.000795* –0.00168*** –0.00188** 0.000276 (0.000327) (0.000494) (0.000601) (0.000483) 1.442* 1.471* 1.759* –0.326 (0.629) (0.701) (0.839) (1.138) 0.00738 –0.261 –0.235 0.183 (0.356) (0.465) (0.503) (0.629) 1.284* 1.162* 0.824 1.293 (0.522) (0.591) (0.639) (0.999) –0.367* –0.396# –0.308 –0.283 (0.152) (0.210) (0.261) (0.224) –2.418*** –3.183*** –2.682** –1.979* (0.545) (0.896) (0.993) (0.835) –0.963* –1.077* –0.698 –1.177 (0.406) (0.488) (0.533) (0.770) –1.768*** –1.134# –0.661 –1.778** (0.517) (0.650) (0.798) (0.585) 0.0999 0.478 1.502 –1.230 (0.551) (0.672) (1.005) (0.796) 54 M. Dick et al. Table 2 Regression results for Models 1–4 (continued) OTHER CONSTANT(S) N McKelvey & Zavoina’s R² Wald χ² Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 INTLEVEL FDI FDI V. EXP. EXP. V. NON-INT. –0.0921 –0.339 0.0258 0.0736 (0.705) (0.859) (1.050) (1.300) Y Y Y Y 160 160 101 98 0.405 0.508 0.443 0.314 52.95*** 33.65*** 25.95** 25.94** 6.75 11.51 10.36 Hosmer–Lemeshow χ² Note: Regression coefficients (standard errors in parentheses). #p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. To analyse the effect of external ownership further, we replace the dummy EXTSHARE with the percentage of external ownership (PERCEXTSHARE) and its quadratic term (PERCEXTSHARE²) to cover for a potential non-linear effect (see Table 3). Models 2a and 3a show a significant positive effect of PERCEXTSHARE on FDI, whereas PERCEXTSHARE² exhibits a negative effect. These results support a non-linear influence of the percentage of external ownership on FDI, whereas we could not find a significant influence on the level of internationalisation (Model 1a) and exporting (Model 4a). The results for the other variables are largely similar to our base results. We also ran the models with PERCEXTSHARE only and omitted the quadratic term. These models do not show a significant effect of PERCEXTSHARE, except for Model 1b, where it affects the level of internationalisation positively. Although the results are ambiguous and should be considered with care, as there are only a limited number of companies with non-family ownership in our sample, they indicate that the highest stages of internationalisation tend to be related to a moderate involvement of non-family owners. Table 3 Regression results for Models 1a, 1b, 2a–4a EQUITY EQUITY² PERCEXTSHARE PERCEXTSHARE² EXTMAN Model 1a Model 1b Model 2a Model 3a Model 4a INTLEVEL INTLEVEL FDI FDI V. EXP. EXP. V. NON-INT. 0.0708* 0.0726* 0.143** 0.172** –0.00947 (0.0299) (0.0297) (0.0467) (0.0609) (0.0428) –0.000764* –0.000774* –0.00157** –0.00200** 0.000226 (0.000330) (0.000327) (0.000493) (0.000641) (0.000489) 0.187 0.0289# 0.220* 0.402** –0.243 (0.127) (0.0153) (0.0997) (0.135) (0.159) –0.00345 –0.00464* –0.00824** 0.00473 (0.00267) (0.00218) (0.00290) (0.00324) –0.00230 0.0992 –0.257 –0.392 0.327 (0.356) (0.361) (0.451) (0.506) (0.637) Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes Table 3 55 Regression results for Models 1a, 1b, 2a–4a (continued) SOPHFM GEN Model 1a Model 1b Model 2a Model 3a Model 4a INTLEVEL INTLEVEL FDI FDI V. EXP. EXP. V. NON-INT. 1.254* 1.325** 1.063# 0.652 1.240 (0.518) (0.509) (0.588) (0.648) (1.008) –0.379* –0.360* –0.386# –0.231 –0.271 (0.153) (0.148) (0.225) (0.266) (0.229) SALES ≥ 2 m & < 10 m –2.455*** –2.378*** –3.150*** –2.630* –2.076* (0.555) (0.540) (0.912) (1.067) (0.835) SALES ≥ 10 m & < 50 m –1.017* –0.989* –1.244* –0.958# –1.279# (0.411) (0.405) (0.492) (0.570) (0.755) –1.722*** –1.726*** –0.940 –0.370 –1.782** (0.523) (0.510) (0.647) (0.728) (0.606) TRADE SERVICE OTHER CONSTANT(S) N McKelvey & Zavoina’s R² Wald χ² Hosmer–Lemeshow χ² Note: 0.0658 0.0673 0.527 1.665 –1.260 (0.561) (0.555) (0.692) (1.035) (0.808) –0.116 –0.174 –0.327 0.177 –0.0342 (0.702) (0.705) (0.862) (1.055) (1.255) Y Y Y Y Y 160 160 160 101 98 0.409 0.380 0.488 0.520 0.334 54.66*** 57.27*** 32.42** 27.37** 27.49** 6.27 12.62 11.41 Regression coefficients (standard errors in parentheses). #p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Returning to Models 1–4, the effect of external managers is not significant in any model. Consequently, Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Financial sophistication is associated with higher modes of internationalisation. It has a significant positive effect on the level of internationalisation (Model 1) and on FDI (Model 2). However, no significant influence of sophisticated financial management could be identified for FDI in Model 3 and exporting (Model 4). Consequently, Hypothesis 4 can only partly be confirmed. The results of Model 4 once again suggest that (especially financial) resources are of minor relevance for exporting, whereas sophistication in working capital management and value-based management improves a company’s financial resources and therefore favours higher internationalisation modes. Contradicting most previous studies (e.g. Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Calabrò and Mussolino, 2013; Calabrò et al., 2015), a subsequent generation is associated with lower internationalisation modes in Models 1 and 2. Moreover, smaller (sales between EUR 2 m and EUR 10 m) and medium-sized FFs (sales between EUR 10 m and EUR 50 m) show a significantly lower level of internationalisation (Model 1) as well as a lower probability of FDI (Model 2) than large enterprises (sales of EUR 50 m and above). Models 3 and 4 yield comparable results, although a medium firm size is no longer 56 M. Dick et al. significant. Concerning industry effects, belonging to the trade industry (TRADE) compared with the manufacturing industry influences internationalisation negatively in Models 1, 2 and 4, whereas the coefficient is not significant in Model 3. 5.3 Marginal effects To evaluate the magnitude of the impact of our finance and governance variables on the internationalisation mode, we calculated average marginal effects for the ordered logit Model 1 (see Table 4). Whereas a 1% increase in the equity ratio has only a negligible impact on exports as the highest internationalisation mode (Column 2) and other international activities that do not involve FDI (Column 3), it increases the probability of FDI (Column 4) by 0.2 percentage points and decreases the probability of no internationalisation (Column 1) by 0.3 percentage points. Nevertheless, both of these effects are below one percentage point. Although the marginal effect of a 1% increase can hardly be compared with the effect of dummy variables, we notice that both the presence of external shareholders and sophisticated financial management increase the probability of undertaking FDI by approximately 20 percentage points (and decrease the probability of no internationalisation by roughly the same value). The effects on exports and international activities without FDI are again comparatively small. Once again, the effects of non-family managers are not significant at all. Table 4 Average marginal effects for Model 1 NON-INT. EXP. OTHER (NO FDI) FDI EQUITY –0.0026* 0.0005* 0.0004# 0.0018# EXTSHARE –0.2019* –0.0478# 0.0245# 0.2252* EXTMAN –0.001 –0.0002 0.0001 0.0012 SOPHFM –0.1797* –0.0425* 0.0218# 0.2005** Note: 6 Results for control variables are omitted. #p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Discussion Taken together, our regression results highlight the importance of resources, particularly finance and governance structures, for the internationalisation of FFs. However, these resources impact the various internationalisation modes differently. While they do not significantly influence exporting, they seem to be crucial for higher levels of international activity and FDI. This is also reflected in the analysis of the marginal effects, which confirms the importance of the finance and governance variables, especially the presence of external shareholders and financial sophistication, for FDI, whereas their influence on lower internationalisation modes is substantially smaller. Concerning the impact of a firm’s capital structure, it seems that exporting, which involves minimal business risk and capital needs compared with higher stages of internationalisation, might be possible for FFs irrespective of their equity base. Regarding higher stages of internationalisation, however, we notice a non-linear influence of leverage: FFs with a low equity ratio tend to internationalise less than businesses with a medium equity base, which supports the proposition that (high) Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 57 leverage causes underinvestment and consequently reduces (foreign) investments. To some extent, however, companies with high equity ratios also show lower internationalisation. This could concern very risk-averse and/or conservative FFs that only have limited financial resources despite their high equity ratios. Such firms rely on internal financing and might avoid not only risky international activities but also risky debt, not least because of the tight credit monitoring exerted by lenders in the bank-based economies of Austria and Germany (Ampenberger et al., 2013). Therefore, medium equity levels seem to drive internationalisation, with the exception of exporting. Previous studies on FF internationalisation rarely analysed the influence of the capital structure. When they did so, they only inserted the leverage ratio as a control variable (e.g. Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2010; Muñoz-Bullón and SánchezBueno, 2012) and reached inconclusive results, as they applied different measures for internationalisation ranging from export propensity to an entropy index of international activities. By focusing on different modes of international activities, we add new empirical evidence on the different capital needs of various internationalisation strategies and can therefore explain some of the heterogeneous findings in past research. Investigating the impact of non-family owners, our results confirm their importance in FF internationalisation. They provide FFs with valuable resources for internationalisation and can change attitudes concerning the risk of expanding abroad. However, their influence was only significant for higher internationalisation modes and not for export activities. Given that exporting is also possible from a strong home base, while an FF’s local orientation can constrain higher levels of internationalisation, especially FDI (Pukall and Calabrò, 2014), our findings suggest that an external owner is important for overcoming this local orientation by providing financial and other resources for higher levels of international commitment, while his resources seem less valuable and necessary in the context of exporting. Thus, our results corroborate previous findings of a positive influence of non-family ownership on internationalisation (see Section 3.2) but only in the context of resource-intensive internationalisation modes. In this way, we can also partly reconcile the inconclusiveness of extant research concerning the impact of external owners, as these studies predominantly considered exports as a measure of internationalisation (e.g. Fernández and Nieto, 2005; Arregle et al., 2012; Merino et al., 2014). Since the highest stages of internationalisation are related to moderate non-family ownership, our study adds further empirical evidence to the prevalence of non-linear relationships between family ownership and FF internationalisation (Sirmon et al., 2008; Sciascia et al., 2012). This indicates that mixed ownership structures seem best suited for internationalisation, particularly higher internationalisation modes. In contrast to previous findings that report a predominantly positive impact of nonfamily involvement in management (Pukall and Calabrò, 2014), our results indicate that non-family managers do not influence any of the analysed internationalisation modes. It seems that non-family shareholders possess more power and assertiveness than external managers. Non-family managers, on the contrary, might feel less inclined to follow the riskier and resource-demanding international strategies given that they are held more accountable for a firm’s performance than family members (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2001). In addition, Di Giuli et al. (2011) suggest that external owners have more influence on an FF’s financial sophistication than an external CEO, which is explained by the networking role of external shareholders being of higher relevance for gaining access to resources than a non-family CEO. Our findings seem to confirm this in regard to 58 M. Dick et al. internationalisation modes. Moreover, external shareholders not only provide access to resources but – in contrast to non-family managers – also broaden an FF’s capital base. Since financial resources matter, especially for higher internationalisation modes, our results may also be related to the positive influence of external investors on the capital base. Finally, the divergent findings concerning external involvement add to past research that found mixed roles of external board members and owners concerning internationalisation (Arregle et al., 2012). Moreover, we provide empirical evidence that financial sophistication is an essential condition for internationalisation, especially higher internationalisation modes. First, working capital management helps to optimise working capital and thus reduces the external financial resources required for internationalisation. While previous studies (Leonidou, 2000; Leonidou, 2004) identified working capital as one central barrier to exporting, working capital management in our research (as part of sophisticated financial management) has no significantly positive effect on exporting, but only on higher internationalisation modes. Hence, our findings imply that optimising working capital is even more important for these higher internationalisation modes than for exporting. Second, as value-based management allows to control for investment projects’ contribution to shareholder value creation (Oxelheim and Wihlborg, 2003; Bausch et al., 2009), our results might also suggest that this financial management concept is more crucial in evaluating higher internationalisation modes, which are both riskier and more capital-intensive, whereas it is (once again) less essential for lower internationalisation modes such as exporting. Taken together, our results prove the importance of professionalisation for coping with the increased complexity and risk resulting from internationalisation (Calabrò et al., 2009; Calabrò and Mussolino, 2013). Consequently, our findings imply that professional structures – one of which is financial sophistication – can help master the challenges of going international and can thus pave the way to intensify an FF’s internationalisation. Our study thus complements previous research that found a positive relationship between internationalisation and sophistication in management accounting (Mitter et al., 2014b), another form of professionalisation. 7 Conclusion 7.1 Concluding remarks and implications This study analysed the impact of finance and governance on FF internationalisation. While capital structure, non-family ownership and financial sophistication drive resource-demanding international activities, they do not affect the less resource-intensive activity of exporting. Hence, our findings lend support to the importance of finance and governance resources in FF internationalisation and thus the RBV in the FF context, but only in the case of higher internationalisation modes. In contrast to most previous studies that measured internationalisation in terms of exports, we provide new evidence on the resource requirements of different internationalisation modes. Thus, our study is not only the first that comprehensively analyses the impact of finance on FF internationalisation, but it also sheds light on why there have been inconclusive results in previous studies concerning the influence of governance. Furthermore, our results highlight the significance of finance and governance factors in altering FFs’ risk perception towards higher levels of international activity and FDI. Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 59 Financial sophistication helps master the challenges of (risky) internationalisation projects, and external ownership appears to reduce the perceived risk related to internationalisation. Therefore, they both foster higher levels of internationalisation. Additionally, our results indicate that very risk-averse and/or conservative FFs rely on internal financing and might avoid not only risky debt but also risky international activities. Moreover, we add to the literature by focusing on FFs’ internationalisation modes in two countries with distinct governance and finance structures that have been investigated relatively scarcely so far. Our findings are also highly relevant for managerial practice, as they can aid FFs to better understand the impact of financing and governance choices on internationalisation. Since medium equity levels seem to drive internationalisation (except exporting), FFs should be more aware of the benefits of higher (but not too high) leverage. This is reinforced by the fact that sophistication in financial management drives higher modes of internationalisation. Hence, FFs should pay more attention to their financing structures as this can facilitate their strategic activities, including internationalisation. Moreover, our findings suggest that the type of external involvement matters. While external investors and non-family managers might broaden the firm’s resource pool and networks, only external owners have the power and will to foster higher modes of international activities. Thus, FFs planning to intensify their internationalisation or to establish foreign subsidiaries should consider opening ownership to external investors. Above all, they will not only help FFs overcome their limited capital resources but will also trigger internationalisation by calling for sophistication in management and (value-creating) investments. Finally, since decisions on capital structure, financial sophistication and non-family involvement do not impact all types of international activities equally, FFs must be aware that certain financing and governance structures can be more or less helpful depending on the targeted internationalisation mode. 7.2 Limitations and outlook This study is not without limitations, which might encourage further research. First, we did not analyse the internationalisation process of FFs. We also did not perform a detailed investigation of the resources that result from the unique finance and governance structures of FFs and their impact on internationalisation. By applying a qualitative research design, both of these aspects could be addressed. Second, our results may suffer from a reverse causality issue. We cannot rule out that an FF decides to go international first and then organises its capital structure, ownership structure, management team and financial management, accordingly, to implement the internationalisation decision. Several studies (e.g. Calabrò et al., 2009; Arregle et al., 2012; Calabrò et al., 2013) therefore collected data for the independent variables first and data for the dependent variable later to overcome this reverse causality issue. Given that our study is cross-sectional, we were not able to test a time lag. Although Cerrato and Piva’s (2012) findings remained consistent regardless of whether they used crosssectional data or a one- or two-year lag pointing to persistence over time, future longitudinal studies can overcome this shortcoming. Although Austria and Germany are known as ‘exporting countries’ with exports as a percentage of GDP above the OECD- and EU-27-average (OECD, 2013) and Austrian FFs in a qualitative study indicated that internationalisation was crucial for their growth and sometimes even their survival (Mitter and Emprechtinger, forthcoming), it must be 60 M. Dick et al. noted that some FFs in certain niches might be unwilling to internationalise and therefore prefer to stay in the domestic market, even if they possess the resources that would enable them to expand across borders. Another limitation can be found in the missing linkage to performance measures, meaning that we were not able to control for the influence of performance on internationalisation. Furthermore, our data set is representative of the two bank-based economies of Austria and Southern Germany, which are very close concerning culture and institutional contexts. Our findings, however, may not be transferable to other economies and cultures. Thus, future research may address this shortcoming with a crosscountry analysis. Although our empirical evidence seemed to indicate a non-linear relationship between non-family owners and internationalisation, we could not investigate this relationship in detail, as most of our FFs were completely family-owned. Future studies with larger sample sizes might therefore explore this non-linear effect more in-depth and analyse the impact of different types of external owners (e.g. strategic investors, other FFs, institutional investors, foreign shareholders etc.). Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Wolfgang Becker and Patrick Ulrich of the University of Bamberg, Germany, for the provision of the German survey data. We would also like to thank participants of the IFERA (International Family Enterprise Research Academy) Annual Conference 2013 in St. Gallen, Switzerland, where an earlier version of the manuscript was presented, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. References Aivazian, V.A., Ge, Y. and Qiu, J. (2005) ‘The impact of leverage on firm investment: Canadian evidence’, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 11, Nos. 1–2, pp.277–291. Ampenberger, M., Schmid, T., Achleitner, A-K. and Kaserer, C. (2013) ‘Capital structure decisions in family firms: empirical evidence from a bank-based economy’, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.247–275. Andersen, O. and Kheam, L.S. (1998) ‘Resource-based theory and international growth strategies: an exploratory study’, International Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.163–184. Anderson, R.C., Mansi, S.A. and Reeb, D.M. (2003) ‘Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp.263–285. Andres, C. (2008) ‘Large shareholders and firm performance – an empirical examination of founding-family ownership’, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.431–445. Argyrous, G. (2011) Statistics for Research: With a Guide to SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage, London. Arregle, J-L., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M. and Hitt, M.A. (2012) ‘Internationalization of familycontrolled firms: a study of the effects of external involvement in governance’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.1115–1143. Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained corporate advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.99–120. Bausch, A., Hunoldt, M. and Matysiak, L. (2009) ‘Superior performance through value-based management’, in Bausch, A. and Schwenker, B. (Eds): Handbook Utility Management, Springer, Berlin, pp.15–36. Bellone, F., Musso, P., Nesta, L. and Schiavo, S. (2010) ‘Financial constraints and firm export behaviour’, World Economy, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.347–373. Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 61 Bradley, M., Jarrell, G.A. and Kim, E.H. (1984) ‘On the existence of an optimal capital structure: theory and evidence’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.857–878. Calabrò, A., Brogi, M. and Torchia, M. (2015) ‘What does really matter in the internationalization of small and medium-sized family businesses?’, Journal of Small Business Management, doi:10.1111/jsbm.12165. Calabrò, A. and Mussolino, D. (2013) ‘How do boards of directors contribute to family SME export intensity? The role of formal and informal governance mechanisms’, Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.363–403. Calabrò, A., Mussolino, D. and Huse, M. (2009) ‘The role of board of directors in the internationalisation process of small and medium sized family businesses’, International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.393–411. Calabrò, A., Torchia, M., Pukall, T. and Mussolino, D. (2013) ‘The influence of ownership structure and board strategic involvement on international sales: the moderating effect of family involvement’, International Business Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.509–523. Cerrato, D. and Piva, M. (2012) ‘The internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: the effect of family management, human capital and foreign ownership’, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.617–644. Cesinger, B., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V. and Kraus, S. (2014) ‘The alchemy of family enterprises’ internationalisation: dexterous movers or prodigal laggards?’, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp.671–696. Chang, Y-C., Kao, M-S. and Kuo, A. (2014) ‘The influences of governance quality on equity-based entry mode choice: the strengthening role of family control’, International Business Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.1008–1020. Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J. and Sharma, P. (1999) ‘Defining the family business by behavior’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.19–39. Claver, E., Rienda, L. and Quer, D. (2007) ‘The internationalisation process in family firms: choice of market entry strategies’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.1–14. Claver, E., Rienda, L. and Quer, D. (2009) ‘Family firms’ international commitment: the influence of family-related factors’, Family Business Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.125–135. Corbetta, G. and Salvato, C. (2004) ‘Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: a commentary on “comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence”’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.355–362. Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A. and Moffett, M.H. (2011) International Business, 8th ed., Wiley, Chichester. Demirgüç-Kunt, A. and Levine, R. (1999) Bank-Based and Market-Based Financial Systems: Cross-Country Comparisons, Policy Research Working Paper 2143, Washington, DC. Dick, M. and Pernsteiner, H. (2015) ‘The impact of family influence on the financial sophistication of firms’, European Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.27–44. Di Giuli, A., Caselli, S. and Gatti, S. (2011) ‘Are small family firms financially sophisticated?’, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp.2931–2944. Doukas, J.A. and Pantzalis, C. (2003) ‘Geographic diversification and agency costs of debt of multinational firms’, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.59–92. Dreux, D.R. (1990) ‘Financing family business: alternatives to selling out or going public’, Family Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.225–243. Fama, E.F. and French, K.R. (2002) ‘Testing trade-off and pecking order predictions about dividends and debt’, Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.1–33. Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. (1985) ‘Organizational forms and investment decisions’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.101–119. 62 M. Dick et al. Federico, J.S., Kantis, H.D., Rialp, A. and Rialp, J. (2009) ‘Does entrepreneurs’ human and relational capital affect early internationalization? A cross-regional comparison’, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.199–215. Fernández, Z. and Nieto, M.J. (2005) ‘Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family businesses: some influential factors’, Family Business Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.77–89. Fowler, F.J. (2009) Survey Research Methods, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gallo, M.Á., Tàpies, J. and Cappuyns, K. (2004) ‘Comparison of family and nonfamily business: financial logic and personal preferences’, Family Business Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.303–318. George, G., Wiklund, J. and Zahra, S.A. (2005) ‘Ownership and the internationalization of small firms’, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.210–233. Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Makri, M. and Larraza Kintana, M. (2010) ‘Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.223–252. Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Nuñez-Nickel, M. and Gutierrez, I. (2001) ‘The role of family ties in agency contracts’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.81–95. Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Takacs Haynes, K., Nuñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007) ‘Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from Spanish olive oil mills’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.106–137. Graves, C. and Thomas, J. (2006) ‘Internationalization of Australian family businesses: a managerial capabilities perspective’, Family Business Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.207–224. Graves, C. and Thomas, J. (2008) ‘Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: an examination of family influence’, Family Business Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.151–167. Griffith, D.A. (2011) ‘Insights into gaining access to export financing: understanding export lenders’ ideal exporter profile’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.84–92. Habbershon, T.G. and Williams, M.L. (1999) ‘A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.1–25. Hiebl, M.R.W. (2013) ‘Risk aversion in family firms: what do we really know?’, Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.49–70. Hitt, M.A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T. and Connelly, B. (2006) ‘International diversification: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators’, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.831–867. Kontinen, T. and Ojala, A. (2010) ‘Internationalization pathways of family SMEs: psychic distance as a focal point’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.437–454. Kontinen, T. and Ojala, A. (2011) ‘International opportunity recognition among small and medium-sized family firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.490–514. Kontinen, T. and Ojala, A. (2012) ‘Internationalization pathways among family-owned SMEs’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.496–518. Lee, K.C. and Kwok, C.C.Y. (1988) ‘Multinational corporations vs. domestic corporations: international environmental factors and determinants of capital structure’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.195–217. Leonidou, L.C. (2000) ‘Barriers to export management: an organizational and internationalization analysis’, Journal of International Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.121–148. Leonidou, L.C. (2004) ‘An analysis of the barriers hindering small business export development’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp.279–302. Leslie, L.L. (1972) ‘Are high response rates essential to valid surveys?’, Social Science Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.323–334. Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2001) ‘The internationalization and performance of SMEs’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, Nos. 6–7, pp.565–586. Impact of finance and governance on internationalisation modes 63 Matthews, C.H., Vasuvedan, D.P., Barton, S.L. and Apana, R. (1994) ‘Capital structure decision making in privately held firms: beyond the finance paradigm’, Family Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.349–367. Merino, F., Monreal-Pérez, J. and Sánchez-Marín, G. (2014) ‘Family SMEs’ internationalization: disentangling the influence of familiness on Spanish firms’ export activity’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.1164–1184. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. and Scholnick, B. (2008) ‘Stewardship vs. stagnation: an empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.51–78. Mishra, C.S. and McConaughy, D.L. (1999) ‘Founding family control and capital structure: the risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.53–64. Mitter, C., Duller, C. and Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2012) ‘The impact of the family’s role and involvement in management and governance on planning: evidence from Austrian mediumsized and large firms’, International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.56–68. Mitter, C., Duller, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. and Kraus, S. (2014a) ‘Internationalization of family firms: the effect of ownership and governance’, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1–28. Mitter, C., Duller, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. and Neubauer, H. (2014b) ‘The interplay of internationalization and management accounting at family firms’, International Journal of Strategic Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.69–86. Mitter, C. and Emprechtinger, S. (forthcoming) ‘The role of stewardship in the internationalisation of family firms’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing. Muñoz-Bullón, F. and Sánchez-Bueno, M.J. (2012) ‘Do family ties shape the performance consequences of diversification? Evidence from the European Union’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.469–477. Myers, S.C. (1977) ‘Determinants of corporate borrowing’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.147–175. Myers, S.C. (1984) ‘The capital structure puzzle’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.575–592. Myers, S.C. and Majluf, N.S. (1984) ‘Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.187–221. Neubauer, H. (2003) ‘The dynamics of succession in family businesses in Western European countries’, Family Business Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.269–281. OECD (2013) OECD Factbook: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris. Okoroafo, S.C. (1999) ‘Internationalization of family businesses: evidence from Northwest Ohio, U.S.A’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.147–158. Oxelheim, L. and Wihlborg, C. (2003) ‘Recognizing macroeconomic fluctuations in value based management’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.104–110. Park, S.H., Suh, J. and Yeung, B. (2013) ‘Do multinational and domestic corporations differ in their leverage policies?’, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 20, pp.115–139. Pearson, A.W., Carr, J.C. and Shaw, J.C. (2008) ‘Toward a theory of familiness: a social capital perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.949–969. Peng, M.W. (2001) ‘The resource-based view and international business’, Journal of Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp.803–829. Poutziouris, P.Z. (2001) ‘The views of family companies on venture capital: empirical evidence from the UK small to medium-size enterprising economy’, Family Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.277–291. Powers, D.A. and Xie, Y. (2008) Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Emerald, Bingley. 64 M. Dick et al. Pukall, T. and Calabrò, A. (2014) ‘The internationalization of family firms: a critical review and integrative model’, Family Business Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.103–125. Sanders, G.W.M. and Carpenter, M.A. (1998) ‘Internationalization and firm governance: the roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.158–178. Schmid, T., Ampenberger, M., Kaserer, C. and Achleitner, A-K. (2009) Family Firms, Agency Costs and Risk Aversion – Empirical Evidence from Diversification and Hedging Decisions, Working Paper No. 2008-13, Munich. Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N. (2003) ‘Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.473–490. Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., Astrachan, J.H. and Pieper, T.M. (2012) ‘The role of family ownership in international entrepreneurship: exploring nonlinear effects’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.15–31. Segaro, E. (2012) ‘Internationalization of family SMEs: the impact of ownership, governance, and top management team’, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.147–169. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1997) ‘A survey of corporate governance’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.737–783. Singla, C., Veliyath, R. and George, R. (2014) ‘Family firms and internationalization-governance relationships: evidence of secondary agency issues’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.606–616. Sirmon, D.G., Arregle, J-L., Hitt, M.A. and Webb, J.W. (2008) ‘The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp.979–998. Sirmon, D.G. and Hitt, M.A. (2003) ‘Managing resources: linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.339–358. Tappeiner, F., Howorth, C., Achleitner, A-K. and Schraml, S. (2012) ‘Demand for private equity minority investments: a study of large family firms’, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.38–51. Thomsen, S. and Pedersen, T. (2000) ‘Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European Companies’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.689–705. Torra, V., Domingo-Ferrer, J., Mateo-Sanz, J.M. and Ng, M. (2006) ‘Regression for ordinal variables without underlying continuous variables’, Information Sciences, Vol. 176, No. 4, pp.465–474. Wernerfeldt, B. (1984) ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.171–180. Zahra, S.A. (2003) ‘International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: the effect of ownership and involvement’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.495–512. Notes 1 2 The study was carried out within the framework of a larger research project; thus, the survey data used in this study have also formed the basis of other research with different focuses and/or (sub)samples. We also ran the models with the linear term only and omitted the quadratic term. These models show no significant effect of the linear term, which supports the inverted U-shaped influence of the equity ratio.