http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2020, Vol. 30, No. 01, 1-17 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2020 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg Introduction 1Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, UK, jacob.salder@manchester.ac.uk 2Birmingham City Business School, The Curzon Building, 4 Cardigan Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK, Mark.Gilman@bcu.ac.uk 3Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, sraby@mtroyal.ca 4Birmingham City Business School, The Curzon Building, 4 Cardigan Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK, Aineias.Gkikas@bcu.ac.uk Beyond linearity and resource-based perspectives of SME growth SMEs, Development, Growth, Integrated, Determinants, Resource-based view APA Citation Information: Salder, J., Gilman, M., Raby, S., & Gkikas, A. (2020). Beyond linearity and resource-based perspectives of SME growth. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 30(1), 1-17. The role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is prominent in academic debate. Rooted in sem- inal works on firm growth (Penrose, 1959), entrepreneur- ship (Schumpeter, 1911), employment (Birch, 1979), and regional development (see Storey, 1984), a growing litera- ture has called for greater understandings of SME growth and its key determinants (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2013; Wiklund, Patzelt, & Shepherd, 2009). A paucity of empiri- cal and theoretical research exists explaining these critical components (Wiklund et al., 2009), with limitations of cur- rent literature shaped by framing the SME growth debate around questions of how much over how or why (McKelvie & Wiklund, 2010). Through this debate, the SME sector and policies supporting it prioritise high growth sub-sam- ples such as ‘gazelles’ (Birch & Medoff, 1994) or the ‘vital 6 Per cent’ (NESTA, 2009). This tendency has compounded limited understand- ings of SMEs. In The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Edith Penrose explicitly outlined plural connotations of the term ‘growth’; the objective increase in specific met- rics is interchangeable with a broader understanding of an “improvement in quality as a result of a process of devel- opment” (Penrose, 1959, p.1). Desire amongst researchers, policy-makers, and businesses to uncover a ‘silver bullet’ to the cumulative growth question has subverted progres- sion of more granular understandings about the relationship between determinants of growth and their contribution to SME improvement (Bennett, 2008; Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). This paper contributes to calls for a broader under- standing of SME growth in both academic and policy cir- cles, with specific focus on this question of process over outputs. Previous works have progressed such understand- ings (Coad, 2007; Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007; Gilbert, Mc- Dougall, & Audretsch, 2006; Macpherson & Holt, 2007; Shepherd & Wiklund, 2009), yet tend to focus on singular aspects (i.e., knowledge and learning, new venture devel- opment). This study extends such understandings through an integrated approach considering multiple determinants Recent debates have seen increased interest in the growth of SMEs. Most research however follows a limited remit, focusing on specific subsets and employing narrow, resource-based perspectives. A consequence is our knowledge is limited on how SME growth occurs more broadly and the critical determinants in this process. This paper addresses this gap, examining SME growth as a multidimensional process rather than an output. The paper operationalises a Four Dimensions Conceptual Model through a Systematic Literature Review of 36 studies on the growth process. It identifies a broader set of determinants supporting a multidimensional approach, the pluralistic nature of SME growth embedded in distinctive contexts. Evidence suggests a greater reliance on firm-based Characteristics and Environmental factors in supporting growth, providing critical inputs into forming and reinforcing networks through which firm-based resources are acti- vated. We emphasise the need to test these propositions through more SME research using qualitative and longitudinal methods. Jacob Salder1, Mark Gilman2, Simon Raby3, Aineias Gkikas4 http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 2 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 and contexts (Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001; Weinzimmer, 2000). To achieve this, it uses a Four Dimensions Concep- tual Model, classifying determinants of growth as either Characteristics, Assets, Strategy or Environment. It ad- dresses three key research questions; which determinants and dimensions are key in the growth process, how do these determinants and dimensions interact and interrelate, and how do these key determinants manifest in relation to firm environment? The paper progresses through the following sections. First, it analyses key debates on the process of SME growth using classic and more contemporary literature. Here it ex- plicitly positions the concept of growth and offers a con- ceptual model capable of affording simplicity in analysing literature on the growth process. Second, it discusses the method and the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) tech- nique applied in testing the conceptual model. Third, it re- views key findings from the SLR and applies these to the conceptual model. Fourth, it considers the utility of our ap- proach, outlines key findings and defines research, policy and practice implications. Defining the Process of SME Growth: An Integrated Ap- proach SME growth research has developed several critical insights over the years. Certain limitations however persist, with three particularly pertinent. First is a tendency toward output-based approaches and the pursuit of formulae capa- ble of predicting, and therefore designing in, growth (McK- elvie & Wiklund, 2010). Second, debate is typically framed within broader political-economic desires to underwrite growth through empirical, quantitative, and cost-based lan- guage familiar to policy-makers and investors, thus shaping growth objectives and their measurement (Bennett, 2008; Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). Third, contextual dimensions of time and space are often ignored, metrics remaining con- stant whilst business practice evolves (Chen, 2005; Oinas, Trippl, & Hoyssa, 2018). Such limitations in existing research have seen ap- proaches to SME development founded upon partial un- derstandings and narrow objectives. To address this issue, further analysis enhancing our understanding of the growth process is necessary to uncover how evolving socio-spatial relations inherent in SME development interact to deliv- er growth (Achtenhagen, Naldi, & Melin, 2010; Hudson, 2001; Leitch, Hill, & Neergaard, 2010). A shortage of em- pirical studies examining the SME growth process exist, yet significant theoretical work has debated how SME growth occurs and its relationship with specific determinants. This section outlines some of these key debates, positioning how growth is interpreted in our analysis alongside its critical foundations, before moving on to form a model for pro- gressing empirical analysis. The Growth Process Growth, and therefore the growth process, has been conceptualised in many ways. One common interpretation has articulated growth as a linear and cumulative phenom- enon inevitable in the business process, primary objectives of business development bound to increases in a firm’s size (Grenier, 1972). Growth occurs through crisis points as organisational practice is challenged by business trajecto- ry, albeit moderated by industrial sector. Such cumulative models presume ongoing growth within a firm, principally in employee numbers or turnover. Whilst escalation of op- erational processes and internal capabilities possess face va- lidity, positioning these within a singular linear model fails to recognise the contested trajectory of firm development. Alternatively, a firm’s growth trajectory is seen as cy- clical. Such cycles however represent multiple overlapping long- and short-wave tendencies focused on maximising profit and product advantages (Markusen, 1985; Vernon, 1966) and disrupting key practices and technologies (Kon- dratiev, 1925). Within either set, a retraction in firm activity is integral in refining product, process or practice (Kuznets, 1955; Schumpeter, 1911; Shleifer, 1986). Such cycles are not uniform (Coad, Frankish, Roberts, & Storey, 2012). Firms function as open systems (Harney & Dundon, 2006), variation in environmental conditions influencing internal capability and related outputs. Growth is therefore stochastic and unpredictable (Storey, 2011); in response growth becomes an autodidactic phenomenon involving constant horizon scanning and evolutionary pro- cesses (Nelson & Winter, 1982). The phenomenon of growth, and the growth process can therefore be conceptualised as concurrently structured and stochastic. For the purposes of this paper, an integrat- ed interpretation is taken. We posit the growth process as transitional, played out through a set of structured but sep- arate long- and short-term cycles. As a result, the develop- ment process is highly periodised, involving development and adoption of distinct tactics utilising multiple inputs from within and outside the firm to identify and respond to changeable conditions. This periodisation makes it cru- cial to understand these multiple inputs contributing toward growth. Determinants of growth: beyond the resource-based view Exploration of critical determinants in the SME growth 3 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 process often applies reductionist tendencies, research pro- gressed on examining association between a narrow set of theoretically-determined factors as opposed to focusing on more holistic understandings (Daft & Weick, 2001; Grant, Gilmore, Carson, Laney, & Pickett, 2001). SME growth de- pends on the availability and exploitation of multiple de- terminants (Baum et al., 2001; Weinzimmer et al., 2000). These determinants can be identified at multiple levels within, across, and outside the SME, high levels of vari- ance occurring in their individual and collective influence on growth (Storey, 1994). SMEs are thus proposed as het- erogeneous entities, the contextual dynamics of operating environment integral (Gilman, Raby, & Pyman, 2015; Mar- om, Lussier, & Sonfield, 2019). Heterogeneity of the firm is a fundamental of the re- source-based view (RBV), individual competitive advan- tage rooted in the unique resource configurations accessible to a firm (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). RBV has become a foundation in SME analysis, focused on firm-based acqui- sition, activation, and management of resources capable of offering sustained competitive advantage (Barney, Ketchen Jr, & Wright, 2011). The definition of resource however re- mains ambiguous. Framed through core characteristics of value, rarity, inimitability, and appropriation, resources are conveniently reduced to those within a firm’s ownership or control (Barney, 1991; 2001a; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1999; Wernerfelt, 1984). The influence of RBV’s on SME development debates has thus been fundamental in narrow- ing explanations and understandings of the growth process. RBV remains cognisant of diverse forms in which re- sources manifest; tangible and intangible, socially complex, causally ambiguous and path dependent (Barney, 2001b). It similarly acknowledges resources can be accessed and appropriated by a firm yet situated and controlled outside the entity itself (Priem & Butler, 2001) as externalities of industrial agglomeration or state investment (Bettencourt, Lobo, Helbing, Kuhnert, & West, 2007; Capello, 1999; Pi- ore & Sabel, 1984). Key characteristics of value and rarity are externally determined, dependent on market conditions (Barney, 2001a) and production factors (Phelps & Alden, 1999; Potter & Moore, 2000). Neither possession nor ac- cess alone yield competitive advantage; also necessary are appropriate processes of application (Ray, Barney, & Mu- hanna, 2004), identification (Barney et al., 2011; Nelson & Winter, 1982) and evolution (Maritan & Peteraf, 2011; Markman, Gianiodis, & Buchholtz, 2009) making explicit the link between internal and external components (Coff & Kryscynski, 2011). To this extent, determining resources as tangible or in- tangible assets within the ownership or control of the firm through RBV offers partial understandings of the complex mix of determinants involved in the SME growth process. Such internal resources and capabilities are crucial, partic- ularly in SMEs where their limitation remains a recognised growth barrier (Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000; McAuley, 2010; OECD, 2009). The internal however de- pend on interaction with a further portfolio of resources temporally acquired, partially integrated, or wholly sepa- rate, yet critical to building or maintaining competitive ad- vantage. It is therefore necessary for RBV analysis of the SME growth process to interpret resources not within the firm but within the context of the firm, incorporating a num- ber of sub- and supra-firm level resources through dynamic capabilities of sensing and understanding change in the ex- ternal environment (Teece et al., 1999). In developing this interpretation, a model can be de- rived presenting resources in four distinct forms. Building on work by Storey (1994), we categorise resources through four key dimensions of Characteristics, Assets, Strategy, and Environment, with consideration of advances in re- search refining these definitions. Characteristics can be identified within but not always attributed to the SME as an independent entity. A set of structural characteristics, including age, size, industry and ownership, determine the firms’ capacity for, ability in, and commitment to growth (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Cowling, Liu, Ledger, & Zhang, 2015). Structural characteristics also determine SME behaviour (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007), compensating internal limitations in resource and experi- ence through tendencies toward innovation, risk-taking and experimentation (Hannan, 1998; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Collectively these determinants represent the struc- tural and behavioural Characteristics which shape firm per- formance (Cowling et al., 2015; Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). Alongside these characteristics, a set of internal as- sets shape the growth process. Acquisition and embedding of organisational resources, such as finance, intellectual property and human capital (Hayton, 2005), and those ca- pability-based (Barney & Hesterly, 2015; Pett, Francis, & Wolff, 2019) combine to create a distinctive suite of Assets for utilisation by SMEs (Boxall & Steenveld, 1999). These internal resources and capabilities are dynamic, evolving through transformation in inter-firm experience levels (An- dren, Magnusson, & Sjolander, 2003; Chebo & Kute, 2019; Love & Roper, 2015; Schenkel, Farmer, & Maslyn, 2019) and extra-firm inputs (Clarysse & Moray, 2004; Lepak & Snell, 1999) to achieve competitive advantage. Asset utilisation depends on developing and imple- menting a clear firm Strategy (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007; Koryak et al., 2015; Moreno & Casillas, 2008; Williams Jr, Manley, Aaron, & Francis, 2018). Strategy may be more emergent and crafted than planned in SMEs (Harney & 4 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 Dundon, 2006), responses emerging through developing strategic behaviours rather than strategic planning (Covin & Slevin, 1991) and embedded in tendencies toward val- ue-adding activities (Hilmersson, 2013; Oviatt & McDou- gall, 2005). Strategy is found in multiple forms at firm and sub-firm level, representing planned and behavioural re- sponses to evolving environmental conditions (Bamiatzi & Kirchmaier, 2012; Chebo & Kute, 2019), contributing toward improvement in resources and capabilities to meet environmental challenges. Evolving environments represent a further set of deter- minants. Firm development is not isolated from macro-eco- nomic trajectories, structural transformation, or geograph- ical resources (Davidsson, Achtenhagen, & Naldi, 2007; Hilmersson, Sandberg, & Pourmand Hilmersson, 2015; Moreno & Casillas, 2008). Regional, national and global economic trajectories impact SME growth, changing re- source environments critical in providing human and social capital, knowledge and communications infrastructures, and cultural-economic institutions (Capello, 1999; Cooke & Morgan, 1998; Hall & Soskice, 2001; Hawawini, Subra- manian, & Verdin, 2002; Love & Roper, 2015; Smallbone, Deakins, Battisti, & Kitching, 2012). Similarly, tendencies for growth and demand display regional and industrial vari- ation, linked to product cycles, trade practices, infrastruc- ture investment, and regulation (Sapienza, Autio, George, & Zahra, 2006). Tendencies to frame the key determinants of growth through RBV has led to a proliferation of theories focused specifically on firm-based resources. Yet, the resources firms rely on to grow occur similarly outside of the SME. This mix of internal and external determinants can be attenuat- ed into four distinct dimensions: structural and behavioural Characteristics, composed of determinants attributed singu- larly to the firm; Assets, composed of tangible and intan- gible determinants within the ownership or control of the firm; Strategy, composed of management plans and aptitude development, and Environment, representing extra-firm determinants of macro-economic, industry, and infrastruc- tural context. These dimensions are here operationalized in a Four Dimensions Conceptual Model (FDCM) to analyse the SME growth process (Figure 1). Positioning Growth as a Concept In the previous two sections this study has outlined the theoretical foundations of how SMEs grow and, when con- sidered as a body of knowledge, how empirical studies pro- duce a multidimensional conceptual model. It has argued the growth process to be dynamic and transitional involving periodised elements and enacted via multiple determinants within and external to the SME. This phenomenon is artic- ulated as four dimensions of Characteristics, Assets, Strat- •Infrastructure / Institutions •Regulation / Support •Market / Industry •Human / Cultural Capital •Human capital •Finance •Tacit knowledge •Network relations •Structural - age, size, sector •Behavioural - learning, networking, innovation •Product development •Process development •Personnel development Strategy Characteristics EnvironmentAssets Figure 1. The Four Dimensions Conceptual Model Source: Adapted from various authors 5 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 egy, and Environment. In this section, the positioning and application of the FDCM to examine the process of SME growth is discussed. Research on growth has tended to capture it as an out- come metric (McKelvie & Wiklund, 2010), thus detaching research from the reality of SME practice, where growth is punctuated via a periodised rather than linear process. This paper considers growth from an alternative perspective; the context of the developmental process. This perspective al- lows for two critical distinctions from other studies. First, it shifts focus from the conceptualisation of growth as an increase in metrics to the less commonly examined process of development (Penrose, 1959). Second, it views growth as part of, rather than separate from, a firm’s long-term sustainability. Some strands of the growth literature sepa- rate these two objectives considering strategies for growth and sustainability fundamentally different (Sapienza et al., 2006). Adaptation to ensure sustainability is a critical aspect in firm development and growth, and therefore as worthy of study as growth metrics and outputs. In this section we have outlined a broad set of deter- minants of growth attenuated into four key dimensions; the FDCM. The relationship between these determinants and dimensions and the growth process is the central consid- eration of this work. The growth process is not a singular phenomenon but depends on the integration of multiple de- terminants (Baum et al., 2001; Weinzimmer et al., 2000). The critical question examined in this paper is therefore how these key dimensions and determinants interact in the SME growth process, whilst taking account of variation be- tween firms and the contextual understanding of the growth process adopted. This gives rise to a second question ex- ploring the relationship between determinants / dimensions and the specific environment in which the firm functions. Due to the spatial and temporal spread of the papers used in the SLR a geographical perspective is adopted, interpreting environment as institutional context through groupings of national economy. This study therefore addresses the following research questions: Q1: Which determinants and dimensions are key in the growth process? Q2: How do these key determinants and dimensions interact and interrelate? Q3: How do these key determinants manifest in rela- tion to firm environment? Method To build stronger understanding of the growth process, the study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) technique. The SLR is appropriate here for its clear process of identification, evaluation and analysis, and ability to ex- plicitly link this process to a research question (Macpherson & Holt, 2007; Zahedi, Shahin, & Babar, 2016). Undertaking this method involved two elements; setting the study selec- tion parameters, and implementing the analysis framework and interpreting the data. Search Process and Study Selection The literature search involved a six-step process identi- fying and refining published work (Table 1). The search was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) database, used for its advanced search refinement options, extensive Social Sciences catalogue, and citation-linked coverage (Aghaei Chadegani et al., 2013; Fingerman, 2006; Jasco, 2005). Step one focused on a string of keywords: ‘SME’, ‘Growth’ and ‘Process’ combined with a limitation placed on publication date. Search terms were selected for their relationship to the objective of the study. Articles prior to the millennium were excluded due to changes from the mid-1990’s to the nature of support infrastructure (Bennett, 2008; Fritsch & Storey, 2014) and the changing nature of the SME development environment considering processes of globalisation and industrial dis-integration (Chen, 2005; Table1 Steps in the article search process Step Protocol Criteria Returns 1 Keyword search SME; Growth; Process and publication date (post-2000) 221 2 Apply discipline Social Sciences 156 3 Apply sub-disciplines Business Economics; Geography; Social Science Other Topics 148 4 Publication review Peer-review only 88 5 Geographical context US/Canada; UK; Europe; Australia/New Zealand 44 6 Type of study Empirical only; bivariate/multivariate analysis 36 6 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 Oinas et al., 2018). The initial search returned 221 articles. Step two limited the search to Social Sciences, omit- ting Science-based disciplines. This returned 156 articles. Step three refined to sub-disciplines of Business Econom- ics, Geography, and Social Science: Other Topics, ensuring relevant returns with the latter capturing related sub-disci- plines not specified (e.g., regional science). This returned 148 articles. To ensure quality articles, step four limited the search to peer-reviewed journals. This stage returned 88 articles. Step five added comparable institutional environments through geographic specifics of US/Canada, UK, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. These criteria allowed for some continuity in institutional context, focusing on more devel- oped countries with both more established SME support in- frastructure and lower entry regulations (Klapper, Laeven, & Rajan, 2006). This returned 44 articles. The sample works were then examined in more detail, reviewing abstract and type of study. This review was con- ducted on empirical studies only and on those using mul- tivariate analysis in consideration of our objective of ex- amining multidimensional factors in the growth process. Following application of this criteria, a final set of 36 papers were identified (Appendix A). The mix of studies selected in this research is worth brief discussion. Following the outlined process, our study selection included both qualitative and quantitative stud- ies. A tendency in much SME research is to focus overtly on quantitative methods, risking narrow and circular un- derstandings more concerned with aggregated objectivity over detailed knowledge (Daft & Weick, 2001; Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2008; Newby, Watson, & Woodliff, 2003) and method validity over appropriateness (McDonald, Gan, Fra- ser, Oke, & Anderson, 2015). By fusing quantitative studies with qualitative and case study research, this research fol- lows a more unorthodox approach in effort to move beyond such aggregated objectivity. Implementing the Analysis Framework and Interpret- ing the Data Analysis of the 36 selected studies progressed using a predominantly manual system of review, coding and analy- sis. This took a syncretic approach – to “unify or reconcile diverse, opposing concerns or approaches” (Macpherson & Holt, 2007, p.176) - applying the FDCM (Figure-1) to understand the relationships and interactions between key determinants in the SME growth process. A layered analy- sis method was applied. First, univariate analysis identified key determinants, their frequency and distribution. Second, bivariate analysis examined binary associations between determinants. Third, multivariate analysis explored the in- tegrated nature of key determinants. Studies were reviewed in detail and key findings for each study recorded manually. These were coded to create a set of distinct determinants and explicitly link these to the FDCM; a full list of identified determinants is included in Appendix B. Following this, a set of cross-tabulations test- ed frequency of association between determinants and di- mensions. Finally, qualitative data analysis software (NVi- vo v.10) supported a cluster analysis, identifying the extent of key determinant associations and level of integration between determinants and dimensions. Through this pro- cess and in interpreting the data it was considered crucial to maintain the link between the four dimensions and the varying determinants in the SME growth process. Findings Key Determinants in the Growth Process Analysis of the key determinants identified through the SLR showed a broad variety were critical across the stud- ies. In total, 50 individual determinants were identified a combined 208 times. Multiple determinants were identified in each article as crucial to the growth process, ranging be- tween three at lowest and ten at highest in any individual article. Recurring determinants of regulation/subsidy and ac- cess to networks/clusters were most frequent, with 9 of 36 studies identifying these as central to the growth process. Regulation in particular was critical in creating a nurtur- ing environment for entrepreneurship (Cowling, 2016; Mendez-Picazo, Galindo-Martin, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2012; Parrilli, 2009), providing support to stimulate continual im- provement (Cowling, 2016; Nowacki & Staniewski, 2012; Parrilli, Aranguren, & Larrea, 2010), and presenting chal- lenges requiring adaptation and innovation to aid new mar- ket entry (Fuchs & Kostner, 2016; Prater & Ghosh, 2005). Access to Networks enhanced learning and development capabilities and knowledge exchange (Davenport, 2005; Kalantaridis, 2009) via engagement with peers, representa- tives, and learning or research institutions (Feakins, 2004; Gordon, Hamilton, & Jack, 2012; Radas & Bozic, 2009; Tu- nisini & Bocconcelli, 2009). Determinants of Regulation and Networks were fol- lowed by firm’s commitment to learning, embedded net- works, and internal capabilities, found in eight papers. Commitment to learning exposed SMEs to broader potential in product and network development (Gordon et al., 2012; Madrid-Guijarro, Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, & Van Auken, 2016; Triguero, Corcoles, & Cuerva, 2014; Wolff, Pett, & 7 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 Ring, 2015), embedded networks - perpetually renewing external relationships - served as a catalyst to new capa- bilities and resources (Bager, Jensen, Nielsen, & Larsen, 2015; Davenport, 2005; Feakins, 2004; Gordon et al., 2012; Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2016; Noke & Hughes, 2010; Radas & Bozic, 2009; Uhlaner, van Stel, Duplat, & Zhou, 2013;), and internal capabilities represented the ability to exploit external determinants (Noke & Hughes, 2010; Parrilli et al., 2010) and implement innovation strategies (Cowling, 2016; Harms et al., 2010; Neirotti, Paolucci, & Raguseo, 2013; Nowacki & Staniewski, 2012). In comparison, certain determinants considered to ex- ert a more orthodox influence on firm capacity for growth recurred less frequently. These included owner’s age, inter- national commitment, banking relationships, technology, finance, skills/personnel, and employee involvement in firm strategy, each identified in only one of the studies. When attributed to the four dimensions (Figure 1), greatest frequency was found in Characteristics, represent- ing a third (33%) of the 208 citations, followed by Envi- ronment, representing 30%. Strategy constituted 23% of determinant citations, while only 14% were attributed to Assets. Positioning determinants and dimensions as singu- lar and independent is however misleading, as in all studies reviewed, growth occurs as an integrated process involving multiple determinants. Integrated Determinants in the Growth Process While the SLR identified a broad set of determinants influencing the SME growth process, these determinants each represent an element of an integrated and multidi- mensional framework for growth. The extent of interaction between determinants in this framework is examined here using bivariate and multivariate association. All papers reviewed indicate the growth process de- pends on multiple determinants. Their distribution across dimensions identified a similar consensus; only one paper cited determinants attributed to a single dimension. The remaining studies saw 11 identify determinants across two dimensions, 17 across three, and 7 all four dimensions. Bi- variate association linked Characteristics to Strategy, Char- acteristics to Environment, and Strategy to Environment; less emphasis was placed on Assets (Table 2). Bivariate association between determinants displays a variable picture, with no two determinants mutually asso- ciated in more than four separate studies. In a field of 50 determinants, a total 1,225 bivariate combinations exist. For 65% (796) of these combinations, no association was iden- tified. Fewer than 9% (107) of possible combinations are identified in multiple studies; 81 combinations for bivariate association found in two separate studies, 22 found in three separate studies, and 4 in four separate studies. Higher frequency of association was identified in four key binary relationships, emphasising the roles of network- ing, adaptation, and extra-firm inputs (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida, 2000; Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003; Chebo & Kute, 2019; Love & Roper, 2015). This linked networking characteristics and regulatory environment, networks as re- sources and education infrastructure, networks as resources and network environment, and education infrastructure and network environment. Links between networking charac- teristics and regulatory environment suggests a symbiosis between networking tendencies and state policy (Macpher- son, Jones, & Zhang, 2005; Nowacki & Staniewski, 2012; Parrilli, 2009), networks reinforcing firm capacity through adaptive requirements (Prater & Ghosh, 2005). Networks as Resource and Education Institutions stimulate reflexive learning experiences, formal and autodidactic (Davenport, 2005; Gordon et al., 2012; Radas & Bozic, 2009), shaped further by the Network Environment utilised in linking these determinants (Gordon et al., 2012; Parrilli, 2009; Ra- das & Bozic, 2009). Despite marginally higher frequency of network-based associations, caution should be exercised as these relationships were found in only a small number of studies. Beyond bivariate association, consistent across the studies was association of multiple determinants. Multivar- iate associations could be examined through cluster analy- sis. Comparing determinants through association via mutual citation in studies suggests broad distribution. A key cluster however emerges associating certain more frequently cited determinants; Networking Tendencies, Regulation-Subsidy, firm-level Capabilities, and Innovation-R&D Strategy; and Business-Product Cycles, Network Clusters, Education-Re- search Infrastructure, and Networks. Critically, this em- phasises determinants outside of the firm, particularly the role of environmental or place-based determinants (Capel- lo, 1999; Love & Roper, 2015). To some extent bound into localised phenomena of agglomeration, policy inducement, Table 2 Aligning dimensions by frequency of bivariate association Characteristic Assets Environment Characteristics - - - Assets 15 - - Environment 21 14 - Strategy 23 11 20 (N = 36) 8 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 and social capital (Parrilli, 2009), capitalising on these is not singularly about proximity but instead how firms antic- ipate and respond to shifting markets through identifying and exploiting opportunities at multiple scales (Davenport, 2005; Prater & Ghosh, 2005; Radas & Bozic, 2009). Context Specific Variation in the Growth Process: The Geographical Context Analysis of the studies by geographic context saw higher frequency of determinant citation amongst firms based in Central Europe compared to other geographical areas (Table 3). Interesting variations also emerged here. For certain areas, some frequently recurring determinants were not observed; specifically regulation/subsidy, inno- vation commitment, learning commitment, and business/ product cycle in Australia-New Zealand; innovation com- mitment and growth strategy in Eastern Europe; (access to) networks/clusters, (established) networks, capabilities, and innovation commitment in North America; and busi- ness/product cycle and innovation/R&D strategy in the UK. Alongside this, certain determinants are more strongly as- sociated with specific areas. This saw a more positive as- sociation in Australia-New Zealand with innovation/R&D strategy, capabilities, sector and firm age; Central Europe with innovation commitment, culture, macroeconomic con- ditions and business/product cycle; Eastern Europe with financial market conditions, education/research infrastruc- ture, knowledge, and networking tendencies; North Amer- ica with growth orientation, firm age and culture; and the UK with sector, geography, growth strategy and learning commitment. Such variation highlights the influence of spatial prox- imity and institutional environment on firm responses to growth ambitions (Hall & Soskice, 2001; Smallbone et al., 2012). The absence of agglomeration or clustering poten- tial for firms in certain spatial contexts stimulated active ‘search-and-adapt’ behaviours (Nelson & Winter, 1982), limiting intention for more localised integration. Here the issue of remoteness is important, occurring at both nation- al (Davenport, 2005; Terziovski, 2010) and regional levels (MacPherson et al., 2005; Nowacki & Staniewski, 2012). This remoteness runs alongside marked differences in the role of collaborative infrastructure or public goods (Capel- lo, 1999). US and UK studies place greater emphasis on indi- vidual and firm-based characteristics and behaviours over collaborative action, compared to a Central European mode of practice with development focused as part of a system. This is reiterated when considering key dimensions. Geo- graphical analysis indicated a greater importance for Char- Table 3 Distribution of determinant citation by geographic area Aus-NZ C. Europe E. Europe N. America UK Total Determinant Citations 17 100 29 26 31 Studies 3 16 5 5 6 Mean Citations (per study) 5.7 6.3 5.8 5.2 5.2 (N=36) acteristics in Australia-New Zealand, North America and the UK; for Assets in Australia-New Zealand and Eastern Europe; for Environment in Eastern Europe; and for Strat- egy in North America. Against this distribution, for Central Europe the dependence was more balanced and integrated across dimensions (Table 4). Discussion Research on SMEs demonstrates growth to be depen- dent on a variety of determinants internal and external to the firm (Baum et al., 2001; Weinzimmer et al., 2000). The findings of this paper reinforce this view. Through appli- cation of a SLR, 50 determinants were found to influence the growth process. A cross-study analysis reveals high variance in determinants, the most frequently recurring ev- idenced in only one-in-four articles. Such diversity should be placed in the context of the studies included in the anal- ysis and their level of rigour, which cannot be guaranteed. Studies were selected on the basis of multi-variate analysis of the SME growth process. What is important here is that despite this approach, many studies retained a narrow agen- da, examining determinants rather than the growth process holistically. It should thus be noted studies typically exclude several relevant determinants influencing growth. This paper sought to address three research questions. First, what determinants and dimensions are important to the growth process? Uncovering the recurrence of multiple 9 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 determinants across the studies reiterates the growth process as a multidimensional construct. Such recurrence is neither uniform nor formulaic. Five specific determinants recur more frequently: Regulation/Subsidy; Clusters; Learning Commitment; Networks; and, Capabilities. Together, these determinants represent 20% of all citations. Moving from determinants to higher-level thematic dimensions, cumula- tive determinants cited across all studies suggest dimensions of Characteristics and Environment are most commonly in- volved in the growth process, and Assets within the firm itself less influential. The second question sought to understand how key determinants and dimensions are interrelated as part of the growth process. High variation between studies revealed 65% of determinants had no identified association. Where dependencies occurred, these were broadly and unevenly distributed. Cluster analysis indicates while certain com- mon determinants were closely associated across studies - specifically Regulation/Subsidy, Clusters, Networks and Capabilities - other common determinants were more frag- mented. The third question considered how key determinants manifest considering context variations, in this study de- fined as institutions created by geo-political environment. Diversity in approaches to growth were observed across the sample when exploring institutional contexts. Determinant analysis indicated higher dependence on those attributed to the characteristics dimension in English-speaking settings, with emphasis on growth orientation and structural determi- nants of firm Size, Age and Industry particularly in US-Can- ada and Australia-New Zealand. In contrast, European firms highlighted values of learning, innovation, and clarity of vi- sion as of greater importance. This paper has sought to consolidate additional evi- dence on and understanding of SME growth through a pro- cess lens to contrast the metric-based model principally fa- voured in research on SME growth (McKelvie & Wiklund, 2010). In so doing, this paper accommodates both the multi- ple determinants perspective (Baum et al., 2001; Weinzim- mer, 2000) and the role of contextual dynamics (Gilman et al., 2015; Marom et al., 2019). Several findings here extend debates on the SME growth process; in particular, the need to better understand how critical determinants integrate in the growth and development process of SMEs. In this analysis the study uses the FDCM to retrospec- tively frame determinants influencing the growth process as either Characteristics, Assets, Strategy or Environment. The importance of these dimensions is not even. On citation basis, most critical are Characteristics and Environment, with Assets less important. Further analysis using bivariate association found key interfaces between Characteristics, Environment and Strategy, again placing Assets as less in- fluential. These finding raise an interesting question. The role of resource limitations in SME development has been wide- ly discussed (Baum et al., 2000; McAuley, 2010; OECD, 2009). To compensate, firms evolve to function in more networked capacities enabling access to broader resources without associated cost through consolidation, appropria- tion and application of a collection of sub- and supra-firm level assets (Cooke & Morgan, 1998; Love & Roper, 2015). This type of firm behaviour represents an extension to arche- typal RBV, reconfiguring resources outside of those simply confined to ownership/control of the firm (Priem & Butler, 2001). Firm performance may be determined by resources within the firm’s influence (Barney & Hesterly, 2015; Pett et al., 2019); this influence extends beyond those within its immediate ownership into broader public goods (Capello, 1999), enabling utilisation of a wider framework of inputs. This expansion of inputs presents significant challeng- es for resource-based approaches to understanding SME growth, reiterating calls for conceptualisation accommodat- ing process over metric-based formulae. The first of these challenges relates to the FDCM. These four dimensions have become key cornerstones for understanding what in- fluences SME growth. The process of determinant classifi- cation and separation may however be counterproductive, these four dimensions better interpreted as elements of a broader resource framework SMEs need to understand and utilise to achieve growth. Second, this reconfiguration of Table 4 Distribution of dimension citations by geographic area Aus-NZ C.Europe E.Europe N.America UK All Areas Characteristics 35% 32% 21% 42% 35% 33% Assets 24% 12% 24% 0% 16% 14% Environment 24% 32% 41% 23% 26% 31% Strategy 18% 24% 14% 35% 23% 23% Source: various authors (N = 36) 10 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 the FDCM suggests that focusing on identifying specific critical determinants of the growth process and their acqui- sition or exploitation may be misguided. Instead, the crit- ical consideration is the integration of such resources and their combination in specific conditions and contexts. To this extent, linking separate resources through network in- volvement, and perhaps more importantly networking capa- bilities, is integral. Finally, the importance of networks not only makes an explicit focus on process over determinants but also leads to a transition in how the functioning of firms is conceptualised from a resource-based to a network-based view. In an era of increasing start-up activity, accelerating technological interaction, barrier reductions, and ongoing vertical dis-integration of production activities, networks have become prominent. Network creation, utilisation and exploitation links critical resources to create distinctive re- sponses to specific market challenges – an epitome of the unique configurations on which competitive advantage is founded (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Network-based approaches have become increasingly popular in fields such as regional studies and economic development, focused on innovation or knowledge-based networks as critical com- ponents in building entrepreneurial and resilient regional economies (see Huggins & Thompson, 2013). Applying such an approach to the entity of the SME may provide new insight into questions of growth and the critical set of in- teractions and dependencies which underwrite this process. Conclusion This paper discusses the issue of the growth process in SMEs. A broad literature exists considering firm growth, yet with limited focus on the process of SME growth. Us- ing a conceptual model informed by classic and contem- porary debates, recent empirical work has been examined. The study employs a SLR through which relevant works on the process of SME growth are identified, examined and analysed. A growing debate around SMEs posited their develop- ment as multidimensional, neither refined to a singular set of critical inputs nor homogenised due to broad contextual dynamics at play within firms (Baum et al., 2001; Gilman et al., 2015; Marom et al., 2019; Weinzimmer et al., 2000). This analysis supports such propositions, indicating a broad mix of determinants in the process of growth. In total, 50 were identified, classified within a FDCM as Characteris- tics, Assets, Strategy or Environment. This analysis has critical implications for much re- search and interpretations of SME practice informed by RBV. Our results give weight to calls for a broader perspec- tive on how resources are defined in the context of SME growth, incorporating those outside the SME’s ownership as integral. The analysis includes indications that develop- ment processes are highly dependent on determinants occur- ring at sub-firm or supra-firm levels. Integral here are cer- tain Characteristics which shape how firms utilise internal and external resources (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007; Hannan, 1998; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Although integral to adopted working practice, these Characteristics additional- ly depend on broader Environment determinants that shape resource availability such as labour and knowledge transfer (Capello, 1999; Cooke & Morgan, 1998). Findings suggest lower dependence amongst SMEs on embedded internal Assets; a finding consistent with behaviours showing the need for high levels of integration with resources outside the firm, and to establish working practices and strategies for their effective integration and exploitation. To this ex- tent, integration of disparate resources becomes dependent on networks and networking capabilities, and thus SME growth less a question of resource-based and more of net- work-based approaches. This paper contributes several potentially significant developments in how the growth process of SMEs is un- derstood, with implications for policy and practice. Focus to date on singular models of understanding SME growth - ‘gazelles’ or the ‘vital 6 Per cent’ - presents a partial pic- ture of the overall process. This study has sought to extend and expand this picture, in response to the call for research accommodating more holistic and multidimensional un- derstandings (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2013; Wiklund et al., 2009). As such, it has implications for methods academics use in SME research, reiterating calls for more longitudinal and qualitative approaches but also the need for more tools and techniques capable of integrating SMEs themselves in the research process. Similarly, this suggests the need for revised policy models and support mechanisms, specifi- cally around formation and reinforcement of communities of practice in both structured and autodidactic learning, knowledge transfer, and collaborative partnerships. Specif- ically, this requires moving beyond not only ‘one-size-fits- all’ but also ‘one-factor-solves-all’ approaches. While presenting an argument for theorising growth as an integrated process alongside a set of proposals on how this may be conceptualised, methodological limitations should be recognised. Principal here is limitations in the studies re- viewed. Although identified systematically, these works are deductive rather than inductive and syncretic. Considering the scope of the analysis undertaken by each, it would be reasonable to assume certain determinants may have been missed. In addition, the identification of determinants does not make any statement of their weighting and similarly works on presumption they have positive effects on SME 11 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 growth. Although the case in the sample studies, several de- terminants could equally exert negative influences. The lim- ited sample of studies included in the analysis should also be acknowledged. This sample reinforces the core criticism of limited research focused on the growth process in SMEs, but equally has implications on the validity of results which require more rigorous testing in further empirical work. Each study can be considered multidimensional, yet the deductive nature limits this extent with the majority adopt- ing quantitative and positivist approaches. This orthodoxy limits holistic and multiple determinant understandings of the growth process (Baum et al., 2001; Weinzimmer, 2000). Finally, there is need for more research that appreciates the role of context, be this geography, industry or internal struc- ture. This research offers no input in terms of mediation or moderation between specific determinants at this point. Un- derstanding the trajectory of the growth process and the di- rection of dependency between determinants would offer a fruitful avenue for future research. References Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L., & Melin, L. (2010). Business growth: Do practitioners and scholars really talk about the same thing? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 289–316. Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus da- tabases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. Andren, L., Magnusson, M., & Sjolander, S. (2003). Op- portunistic adaptation in start-up companies. Inter- national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(5/6), 546–562. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924. Bager, T. E., Jensen, K. W., Nielsen, P. S., & Larsen, T. A. (2015). Enrollment of SME managers to growth-ori- entated training programs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(4), 578- 599. Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Pol- icy, 32(2), 255–276. Bamiatzi, V. C., & Kirchmaier, T. (2012). Strategies for su- perior performance under adverse conditions: A fo- cus on small and medium-sized high-growth firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(3), 259- 284. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Barney, J. B. (2001a). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56. Barney, J. B. (2001b). Resource-based theories of compet- itive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the re- source-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650. Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2015). Strategic manage- ment and competitive advantage: Cases and con- cepts. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Barney, J. B., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or de- cline. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299-1315. Baum, J., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and start-ups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A mul- tidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292-303. Belás, J., Vojtovič, S., & Ključnikov, A. (2016). Microen- terprises and significant risk factors in loan process. Economics and Sociology, 9(1), 43-59. Bennett, R. (2008). SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: What have we learnt? Environment and Plan- ning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 375-397. Bettencourt, L., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C., & West, G. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301-7306. Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Program on Neighborhood and Re- gional Change. Birch, D. L., & Medoff, J. (1994). Gazelles. In L. C. Solm- on & A. R. Levenson (Eds.), Labor markets, employ- ment policy and job creation (pp. 159-167). Boulder, CO: Westview. Boxall, P., & Steenveld, M. (1999). Human resource strat- egy and competitive advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consultancies. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 36(4), 443–463. Capello, R. (1999). Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux: Learning versus collective learn- ing processes. Regional Studies, 33(4), 353–365. Chebo, A. K., & Kute, I. M. (2019). A Strategic process and small venture growth: The moderating role of environmental scanning and owner-CEO. Journal of 12 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 Small Business Strategy, 29(3), 60-77. Chen, Y. (2005). Vertical disintegration. Journal of Eco- nomics & Management Strategy, 14(1), 209-229. Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of en- trepreneurial team formation: The case of a re- search-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55-79. Coad, A. (2007). Firm growth: A survey. Documents de tra- vail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne 2007.24 - ISSN: 1955-611X. 2007. Coad, A., Frankish, J., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2012). Growth paths and survival chances: An appli- cation of Gambler’s Ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615-632. Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Drilling for micro-foun- dations of human capital-based competitive advan- tages: Cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1429-1443. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The associational econo- my: Firms, regions and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model on entrepreneurship as a firm behaviour. Entrepreneur- ship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 7-25. Cowling, M. (2016). You can lead a firm to R&D but can you make it innovate? UK evidence from SMEs. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 565-577. Cowling, M., Liu, W., Ledger, A., & Zhang, N. (2015). What really happens to small and medium-sized enterpris- es in a global economic recession? UK evidence on sales and job dynamics. International Small Business Journal, 33(5), 488-513. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (2001). Toward a model of orga- nizations as interpretation systems. In Warwick Or- ganizational Behaviour Staff (Eds.), Organizational studies: Critical perspectives on business and man- agement (pp. 869-888). London: Routledge. Davenport, S. (2005). Exploring the role of proximity in SME knowledge-acquisition. Research Policy, 34(5), 683-701. Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., & Naldi, L. (2007). What do we know about small firm growth? In S. Park- er (Ed.), The lifecycle of entrepreneurial ventures: International Handbook Series (pp.361-398). New York, US: Springer. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2013). New perspective on firm growth. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub- lishing. Deschryvere, M. (2014). R&D, firm growth and the role of innovation persistence: An analysis of Finnish SMEs and large firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 767-785. Dobbs, M., & Hamilton, R.T. (2007). Small business growth: Recent evidence and new directions. Inter- national Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(5), 296-322. Eggers, F., Hansen, D.J., & Davis, A.E. (2012). Examining the relationship between customer and entrepreneur- ial orientation on nascent firms’ marketing strategy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(2), 203-222. Feakins, M. (2004). Commercial bank lending to SMEs in Poland. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 51-70. Feindt, S., Jeffcoate, J., & Chappell, C. (2002). Identifying success factors for rapid growth in SME e-commerce. Small Business Economics, 19(1), 51-62. Fingerman, S. (2006). Web of science and scopus: Cur- rent features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 48(Fall). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html Fleetwood, S., & Hesketh, A. (2008). Theorising under-the- orisation in research on the HRM-performance link. Personnel Review, 37(2), 126-144. Fritsch, M., & Storey, D. (2014). Entrepreneurship in a re- gional context: Historical roots, recent developments and future challenges. Regional Studies, 48(6), 939- 954. Fuchs, M., & Kostner, M. (2016). Antecedents and con- sequences of firm’s export marketing strategy: An empirical study of Austrian SMEs (a contingency perspective). Management Research Review, 39(3), 329-355. Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Jour- nal of Management, 32(6), 926-950. Gilman, M., Raby, S., & Pyman, A. (2015). The contours of employee voice in SMEs: The importance of context. Human Resources Management Journal, 25(4), 563- 579. Gordon, I., Hamilton, E., & Jack, S. (2012). A study of uni- versity-led entrepreneurship education programmes for small business owner/managers. Entrepreneur- ship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 767-805. Grant, K., Gilmore, A., Carson, D., Laney, R., & Pickett, B. (2001). “Experiential” research methodology: An integrated academic‐practitioner “team” approach”. Qualitative Market Research: An International Jour- nal, 4(2), 66-75. Grenier, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organiza- tions grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: 13 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 The institutional foundations of comparative advan- tage. New York, US: Oxford University Press. Hannan, M. (1998). Rethinking age dependence in organi- zational mortality: Logical formalizations. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 126-164. Harms, R., Reschke, C. H., Kraus, S., & Fink, M. (2010). Antecedents of innovation and growth: Analysing the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and goal-orien- tated management. International Journal of Technol- ogy Management, 52(1/2), 135-152. Harney, B., & Dundon, T. (2006). Capturing complexity: Developing and integrated approach to analysing HRM in SMEs. Human Resources Management Journal, 16(1), 48-73. Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V., & Verdin, P. (2002). Is per- formance driven by industry or firm specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 1-16. Hayton J. C. (2005). Competing in the new economy: The effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepre- neurship in high technology new ventures. R&D Management, 35(2), 137–155. Hilmersson, M. (2013). The effect of international expe- rience on the degree of SME insidership in newly opened business networks. Baltic Journal of Man- agement, 8(4), 397-415. Hilmersson, M. Sandberg, S., & Pourmand Hilmersson, F. (2015). Political knowledge, political turbulence and uncertainty in the internationalization process of SMEs. European Business Review, 27(3), 234-252. Hudson, R. (2001). Producing places. New York, US: Guil- ford Press. Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2013). A network-based view of regional growth. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 511-545. Jasco, P. (2005). As we may search – comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced data- bases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547. Kalantaridis, C. (2009). SME strategy, embeddedness and performance in East Cleveland, North East England. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 496- 521. Klapper, L., Laeven, L., & Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regula- tion as a barrier to entrepreneurship. Journal of Fi- nancial Economics, 82(3), 591-629. Kondratiev, N. D. (1925). The major economic cycles. Vo- prosy Konjunktury, 1, 28-79. Koryak, O., Mole, K. F., Lockett, A., Hayton, J. C., Ucbasa- ran, D., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. Internation- al Small Business Journal, 33(1), 89-105. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequali- ty. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28. Leitch, C., Hill, F., & Neergaard, H. (2010). Entrepreneurial and business growth and the quest for a ‘comprehen- sive theory’: Tilting at windmills? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 249–260. Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allo- cation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48. Levy, M., Powell, P., & Yetton, P. (2002). The dynamics of SME information systems. Small Business Econom- ics, 19(4), 341-354. Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2015). SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of existing evidence. Interna- tional Small Business Journal, 33(1), 28-48. Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36(2), 172-192. Macpherson, A., Jones, O., & Zhang, M. (2005). Virtual reality and innovation networks: Opportunity ex- ploitation in dynamic SMEs. International Journal of Technology Management, 30(1-2), 49-66. Madrid‐Guijarro, A., García‐Pérez‐de‐Lema, D., & Van Auken, H. (2013). An investigation of Spanish SME innovation during different economic conditions. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 578- 601. Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, D., & Van Auken, H. (2016). Financing constraints and SME in- novation during economic crises. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 29(1), 84-106. Maritan, C., & Peteraf, M. A. (2011). Building a bridge be- tween resource acquisition and resource accumula- tion. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1374-1389. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2009). Factor market rivalry. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 34(3), 423-441. Markusen, A. (1985). Profit cycles, oligopoly, and regional development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marom, S., Lussier, R. N., & Sonfield, M. (2019). Entrepre- neurial strategy: The relationship between firm size and levels of innovation and risk in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(3), 33-45. McAuley, A. (2010). Looking back, going forward: Reflect- ing on research into the SME internationalisation process. Journal of Research in Marketing and En- trepreneurship, 12(1), 21–41. McDonald, S., Gan, B. C., Fraser, S. S., Oke, A., & Ander- son, A. R. (2015). A review of research methods in 14 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 entrepreneurship 1985-2013. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(3), 291- 315. McKelvie, A., & Wiklund, J. (2010). Advancing firm growth research: A focus on growth mode instead of growth rate. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(2), 261-288. Mendez-Picazo, M. T., Galindo-Martin, M. A., & Ri- beiro-Soriano, D. (2012). Governance, entrepreneur- ship and economic growth. Entrepreneurship & Re- gional Development, 24(9-10), 865-877. Moreno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model. En- trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 507-528. Neirotti, P., Paolucci, E., & Raguseo, E. (2013). Is it all about size? Comparing organisational and environ- mental antecedents of IT assimilation in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Technology Management, 61(1), 82-108. Nelson, R., & Winter, S (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Boston, MA: Belknap Press. NESTA (2009). The vital 6%. Retrieved from https://www. nesta.org.uk/report/the-vital-6/. Newby, R., Watson, J., & Woodliff, D. (2003). SME survey methodology: Response rates, data quality, and cost effectiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 28(2), 163-172. Noke, H., & Hughes, M. (2010). Climbing the value chain: Strategies to create a new product development capa- bility in mature SMEs. International Journal of Op- erations & Production Management, 30(2), 132-154. Nowacki, R., & Staniewski, M. W. (2012). Innovation in the management of SMEs in the service sector in Poland. Amfiteatru Economic, 14(6), 755-773. OECD (2009). Top barriers and drivers to SME internation- alisation. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Publishing. Oinas, P., Trippl, M., & Hoyssa, M. (2018). Regional in- dustrial transformation in the interconnected global economy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 227-240. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining inter- national entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537-553. Parrilli, M. D. (2009). Collective efficiency, policy induce- ment and social embeddedness: Drivers for the de- velopment of industrial districts. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(1), 1-24. Parrilli, M. D., Aranguren, M. J., & Larrea, M. (2010). The role of interactive learning to close the “innovation gap” in SME-based local economies: A furniture cluster in the Basque Country and its key policy im- plications. European Planning Studies, 18(3), 351- 370. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pett, T. L., Francis, J., & Wolff, J. A. (2019). The interplay of strategic orientations and their influence on SME performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(3), 46-59. Phelps, N., & Alden, J. (1999). Foreign direct investment and the global economy: Corporate and institutional dynamics of global-localisation. London, UK: The Stationery Office. Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York, US: Basic Books. Potter, J., & Moore, B. (2000). UK Enterprise Zones and the attraction of inward investment. Urban Studies, 37(8), 1279-1312. Prater, E., & Ghosh, S. (2005). Current operation practices of US small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2), 155- 169. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40. Radas, S., & Bozic, L. (2009). The antecedents of SME innovativeness in an emerging transition economy. Technovation, 29(6-7), 438-450. Rakićević, Z., Omerbegović-Bijelović, J., & Lečić-Cv- etković, D. (2016). A model for effective planning of SME support services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 30-40. Randelli, F., & Lombardi, M. (2014). The role of leading firms in the evolution of SME clusters: Evidence from the leather products cluster in Florence. Euro- pean Planning Studies, 22(6), 1199-1211. Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabil- ities, business processes and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 23-37. Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2001). Capital structure decision making: A model for fam- ily business. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 285-310. Sapienza, H. J., Autio, E., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). A capabilities perspective on the effects of early in- ternationalization on form survival growth. Academy https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/the-vital-6/ https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/the-vital-6/ 15 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 of Management Review, 31(4), 914-933. Schenkel, M. T., Farmer, S., & Maslyn, J. M. (2019). Pro- cess improvement in SMEs: The impact of harmoni- ous passion for entrepreneurship, employee creative self-efficacy, and time spent innovating. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(1), 71-84. Schmieder, C., Marsch, K., & Forster-van Aerssen, K. (2010). Does banking consolidation worsen firms’ access to credit? Evidence from the German econo- my. Small Business Economics, 35(4), 449-465. Schumpeter J. A. (1911). The theory of economic develop- ment: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans- action Books. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appro- priateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(1), 105-123. Shleifer, A. (1986). Implementation cycles. Journal of Po- litical Economy, 94(6), 1163–1190. Smallbone, D., Deakins, D., Battisti, M., & Kitching, J. (2012). Small business responses to a major econom- ic downturn: Empirical perspectives from New Zea- land and the United Kingdom. International Small Business Journal, 30(7), 754-777. Spence, M., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (2011). A comparative study of international and domestic new ventures. Management International Review, 51(1), 3-21. Storey, D. (1984). Editorial. Regional Studies, 18(3), 187- 188. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London, UK: International Thomson Business Press. Storey, D. (2011). Optimisim and chance: The elephants in the entrepreneurship room. International Small Busi- ness Journal, 29(4), 303-321. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1999). Dynamic ca- pabilities and strategic management. In M. H. Zack (Ed.), Knowledge and strategy (pp. 77-115). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Terziovski, M. (2010). Innovation practice and its perfor- mance implications in small and medium-sized en- terprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A re- source-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 892-902. Triguero, A., Corcoles, D., & Cuerva, M. C. (2014). Per- sistence of innovation and firm’s growth: Evidence from a panel of SME and large Spanish manufactur- ing firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 787-804. Tunisini, A., & Bocconcelli, R. (2009). Reconfiguring sup- plier relationships between local and global: History matters. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(6), 671-678. Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project manage- ment in small to medium-sized enterprises: Match- ing processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 744-755. Uhlaner, L. M., van Stel, A., Duplat, V., & Zhou, H. (2013). Disentangling the effects of organisational capabili- ties, innovation and firm size on SME sales growth. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 581-607. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and interna- tional trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Jour- nal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207. Weinzimmer, L. G. (2000). A replication and extension of organisational growth determinants. Journal of Busi- ness Research, 48(1), 35-41. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integrative model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 351-374. Williams Jr, R. I., Manley, S. C., Aaron, J. R., & Francis, D. (2018). The relationship between a comprehensive strategic approach and small business performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), 33-48. Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2006). Small-firm performance: Modeling the role of product and process improve- ments. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268-284. Wolff, J. A., Pett, T. L., & Ring, J. K. (2015). Small firm growth as a function of both learning orientation and entrepreneurial orientation: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(5), 709-730. Zahedi, M., Shahin, M., & Babar, M. A. (2016). A system- atic review of knowledge sharing challenges and practices in global software development. Interna- tional Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 995-1019. 16 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020 / 1-17 Appendix A Overview of Selected Studies Ref # Author(s) Year Research Subject Geographical Context Research Method Analysis Type P1 Bager et al. 2015 SME, cross-sectional, growth-oriented Denmark Case Study / Controlled Analysis Quantitative P2 Belás, Vojtovič, and Ključnikov 2016 SME, cross-sectional Czech Survey Quantitative P3 Cowling 2016 SME, cross-sectional UK Survey Quantitative P4 Davenport 2005 SME, production NZ Case Study Qualitative P5 Deschrynere 2014 All firms, incl. SMEs, cross-sectional, sales & R&D conditions Finland Panel Study, Longitudinal Quantitative P6 Eggers, Hansen, and Davis 2012 Micros, cross-sectional US Panel Study Quantitative P7 Feakins 2004 Banking sector (SMEs as clients) Poland Discourse analysis, case study Qualitative P8 Feindt, Jeffcoate, and Chappell 2002 Baby Gazelles Small e-commerce EU countries Content analysis Qualitative P9 Fuchs and Kostner 2016 SME, exporters Austria Survey Quantitative P10 Gordon et al. 2012 Small, cross-sectional UK Longitudinal Qualitative P11 Harms et al. 2010 SME, cross-sectional, growth oriented Germany Survey Quantitative P12 Kalantaridis 2009 SME, cross-sectional (rural) UK Survey Quantitative P13 Levy, Powell, and Yetton 2002 All firms, cross-sectional UK Case Study Qualitative P14 Macpherson et al. 2005 Small, manufacturing UK Case Study Qualitative P15 Madrid‐Guijarro, García‐Pérez‐de‐Lema, and Van Auken 2013 SME, manufacturing Spain Survey Quantitative P16 Madrid-Guijarro et al 2016 SME, manufacturing Spain Survey Quantitative P17 Mendez-Picasso et al. 2012 Entrepreneurship, innovation, and governance relationships 11 Developed Countries Panel study Quantitative P18 Neirotti et al. 2013 SME, manufacturing, wholesale retail, business services, logistics Italy Survey Quantitative P19 Noke and Hughes 2010 SME, manufacturing UK Case study Qualitative P20 Nowacki and Staniewski 2012 SME, cross-sectional Poland Survey Quantitative P21 Parrilli et al. 2010 SME, manufacturing France/Spain Case Study Mixed methods P22 Parrilli 2009 SME, manufacturing Italy Case study Mixed methods P23 Prater and Ghosh 2005 SME, manufacturing US Survey Quantitative P24 Radas and Bozic 2009 SME, manufacturing, service Croatia Survey Quantitative P25 Rakićević, Omerbegović-Bijelović, and Lečić-Cvetković 2016 SME, cross-sectional Serbia Documentary analysis Mixed methods P26 Randelli and Lombardi 2014 SME, manufacturing Italy Case Study Qualitative P27 Romano, Tanewski, and Smyrnios 2001 SME, cross-sectional Australia Survey Quantitative P28 Schmieder, Marsch, and Forster-van Aerssen 2010 SME, cross-sectional Germany Panel Study Quantitative P29 Spence, Orser, and Riding 2011 SME, cross-sectional Canada Survey Quantitative P30 Terziovski 2010 SME, manufacturing Australia Survey Quantitative P31 Triguero et al. 2014 SME, manufacturing Spain Longitudinal Quantitative P32 Tunisini and Bocconcelli 2009 SME, manufacturing Italy Case Study, longitudinal Qualitative P33 Turner, Ledwith, and Kelly 2010 SME, cross-sectional Europe Survey Qualitative P34 Uhlaner et al. 2013 SME, cross-sectional Netherlands Survey, longitudinal Quantitative P35 Wolff and Pett 2006 SME, cross-sectional US Survey Quantitative P36 Wolff et al. 2015 SME, cross-sectional US Survey Quantitative (N=36) 17 J. Salder, M. Gilman, S. Raby, & A. Gkikas Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 30, No. 1 (2020) / 1-17 Appendix B Identified Determinants in SLR Process Dimension Determinant Characteristics Growth Orientation Firm Size Education Learning Commitment Leader / Manager Experience Risk Acceptance Firm Age Entrepreneurial Orientation Owner Age Customer Orientation Networking Tendencies International Commitment Sector Flexibility Innovation Commitment Ownership / Structure Long Term Vision Assets Networks Technology Capabilities Employees Bank Relations Finance Knowledge Environment Education / Research Infrastructure Geography Business/ Product Cycle Communications Infrastructure Macro-Economic Conditions Networks/ Clusters Financial Market Conditions Technology Regulation / Subsidy Culture Hostility Skills/Personnel Strategies Management Development IT Strategy Employee Development Marketing Financial Acquisition Product Adaptation Innovation / R&D Financial / Price Strategy Product Innovation Communication/ Distribution Process Innovation Export / Outsourcing Growth Strategy Employee Involvement