Internationalisation in the Born Global Pathway

Despite having dissimilarities in terms of their postulations about the role and nature of OL, the models unanimously agree that this concept plays a pivotal role in elucidating as well as comprehending an organisation’s gains in global markets. The current report will aim at critically assessing the Uppsala model (organic pathway) and the born global pathway. Subsequently, the two pathways will be compared in order to identify the contrast between them. Review of various literature sources will be undertaken in order to augment the fundamental premise of this research.

According to Ahlstrom and Bruton (2009) “entrepreneurial firms that are global from their inception” (Ahlstrom &amp. Bruton, 2009, pp.183) are said to be born global. Unlike conventional organisations that take small steps towards internationalisation, these firms do not prefer a gradual learning process. rather they establish different activities to be performed in different nations. Although numerous organisations are embracing this model, it has been observed that “often these are technology-focused firms. where global demand for the firm’s products is so small that if it relies on any single national market, there is insufficient demand for the firm to survive” (Ahlstrom &amp. Bruton, 2009, pp.183). As has already been told, the born global organisations “are companies that internationalise at or near their founding”, and Knight, et al. (2004) have observed that “in the current global economy the more recent model of ‘born global’ internationalisation is becoming increasingly common” (Segal-Horn &amp. Faulkner, 2010, pp.137). Oviatt and McDougall (1994) have opined that a born global firm is “a business organisation that, from inception, seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs in multiple countries” (Zacharakis, Minniti, Spinelli, Rice &amp. Habbershon, 2007, pp.158). Furthermore, in concurrence with Shane (n.d.), they have also propounded that “the traditional stage models of internationalisation fail to provide an explanation as to why and how born global firms can internationalise without first going through the incremental processes predicted by the stage models” (Zacharakis, Minniti, Spinelli, Rice &amp. Habbershon, 2007, pp.158).&nbsp.&nbsp.