APPLIED TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION INTERNATIONALIZED MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

REGISTRO DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7568769

João Carlos Apolônio de Souza¹
Paulo Tadeu de Mello Lourenção¹
Fábio Luís Falchi de Magalhães¹

Abstract — Context: The internationalization of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) is becoming increasingly common in the global context. With the increase in global demand for goods and services and the consequent growth of business opportunities, these companies must remain competitive and offer innovative solutions to their client markets. Objective: This article aims to investigate the extension and application of technological innovation processes and tools in the context of micro, small and medium-sized companies, as well as how these innovations can help them to do business with international stakeholders. Method: A systematic literature review (SLR) was used to conduct this work, selecting 21 articles published between 2016 and 2021. Results: The results of this systematic review should encourage further research on the application of technological innovation in micro, small and medium-sized internationalized companies. The results presented point to the need for more studies focused on the context of MSMEs, since most of the literature focuses on the theme from the perspective of large companies. Conclusion: The most relevant results of this work and its implications for future research are the following: It is possible to increase technological innovation and the competitiveness of MSMEs through organizational innovation actions; The quantity and degree of innovation are the two main enablers of competitiveness for internationalized MSMEs; Internal and external factors constitute the main concerns and vulnerabilities of internationalized MSMEs; There is a wide range of methodologies that allow measuring the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs. This work provides some contributions to academia, companies and society, such as a collection of different perspectives of internationalized MSMEs in the context of technological innovation, with a focus on practical issues that can help these companies to ensure their operation in an increasingly challenging and complex global scenario.

Index Terms—Technological Innovation, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, MSMEs, Internationalized MSMEs

1 INTRODUCTION

Foreign trade is, historically, a powerful economic tool, which through sale (export) or purchase (import) brings at its core the aggrandizement of the nation that puts it into practice. The global trade market is one of the main engines for development and an important weapon to fight poverty [1]. Through liberalized foreign trade, it becomes possible for a country to guarantee, among other factors, the entry of new technologies, suppliers and economies of scale [2].

Technological innovations may be described as innovation in the form of inputs, activities and outputs. This kind of innovation, when applied by enterprises, is one of the keys for the success of the business [3]. Companies that make use of technological innovation expect it to provide a significant competitive advantage, because of its potential to shape consumer preferences and to create new markets [4]. Beyond its important role in competitiveness, technological innovation is also essential to answer relevant questions related to sustainable development [5].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) face the same management difficulties as large businesses. However, the challenges encountered by MSMEs are larger due to the fact that the process management of this kind of business is more likely not to be constantly restructured for the conditions of global competition [6]. Technological innovation and international trade are interdependent actions, and both of them may influence a business future profitability [7]. The pursuit for innovation in a continuous way is vital for the survival of MSMEs and triggers economic and social changes in its surroundings. Gross domestic product (GDP) is likely to rise and unemployment to reduce in countries that have MSMEs with innovation driven management actions [8]. It is possible to find recent literature trying to decipher the relationship between business internationalization and innovation. However, most of all previous studies focused on the relationship applied for big companies, while sparse attention has been given to the MSME context [3].

The main purpose of this article is to study the extension and application of technological innovative processes and tools in the context of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and how these innovations may assist them in doing business with international stakeholders.

It is a broad subject that has an interesting and ramified literature, where it is possible to highlight the works of Natalicchio et al. [9]; Zanello et al. [10] and Saunila, M. [11], in general with a focus on the benefits that technological innovation has the potential to offer. Despite this, there is still a certain gap on the same subject, however from the perspective of the scenario of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which justifies the present work.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents background and related work. Section 3 describes the research methodology adopted to conduct the SLR, dividing it into seven subsections: PICOC Elements, research questions, search strings and research bases, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality criteria, data extraction and threats to validity. Results and analysis of our research questions are presented in Section 4. At last, in Section 5 we present the conclusion about how applied technological innovation may assist internationalized micro small and medium enterprises.

2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK

In order to detect papers connected with technological innovation for internationalized micro, small and medium enterprises, a search in ScienceDirect, Emerald and Springer Link databases in August 2021 was made. As a primary result, it was not possible to find any systematic literature review on the subject. However, when the word “internationalized” was drawn from the search, three systematic literature reviews were found. This fact connects with the non-SLR articles gap already presented.

All of the three systematic literature reviews presented insights on how innovative technologies may assist micro, small and medium-size enterprises to endure and enhance competitiveness.

In 2017, Santisteban, J. & Mauricio, D. [12] published a paper entitled “Systematic Literature Review of Critical Success Factors of Information Technology Startups”. In this paper, they analyzed, what they called, the critical success factors of IT startups and identified 21 one of them, grouped into three distinct groups: organizational, individual and external. Despite the effort to identify and categorize each success factor, the authors identified that there are a small number of studies about the stages of development that a startup company may pass.

The second systematic literature review is the paper “Managing knowledge assets for open innovation: a systematic literature review”, from Natalicchio et al. [9]. In this 2017 paper, the authors set out to provide a SLR on how knowledge management practices may support open innovation. In line with Santisteban, J. & Mauricio, D. [12], Natalicchio et al. [9] also find that three are the groups that support open innovation processes: inbound, outbound and processes. Although not strictly focused at micro, small and medium enterprises, this paper highlights how knowledge management is important in an innovation context.

The last SLR is the 2019 paper from Saunila, M. [13], entitled “Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature”. In this paper, the author aimed to broaden the understanding of the characteristics of the innovation capacity of small businesses. The author also identified no prior SLRs regarding innovation capability focused in small enterprises. This article shows that innovation capability affects small companies’ performance. Also that for small enterprises, innovation is often conceptualized as an outcome.

After comparison and evaluation of related work, as per the methodology described by Martins and Gorscher [13], it is possible for this systematic literature review to explore what perspectives have been used to investigate and validate MSMEs technological innovation.

In order to define the scope, clarify the terms used and to ensure consistency throughout this systematic literature review, bellow are presented the definition of the keywords, arranged in alphabetical order:

Innovation: A function based on creative thinking and action, being an activity where products and consumption habits are replaced by new ones [14]. An implementation of some product, whether new or with a significant improvement, a process, a new marketing method, or the implementation of a new method in workplace organization practice, business practice or external relations [15].

International Trade: An economic tool, which through sale (export) or purchase (import) brings at its core the aggrandizement of the nation that puts it into practice [1]. Managers: a professional who conducts business affairs.

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises: A certain gap regarding the international definition of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) is observed in literature. In this work it is adopted the classification by the number of employees in the company, as follows:

● Micro Enterprises

○ Services: upt to 9 employees ○ Industry: up to 19 employees ● Small Enterprises:

○ Services: from 10 to 49 employees ○ Industry: from 20 to 99 employees ● Medium Enterprises:

○ Services: from 50 to 99 employees

○ Industry: from 100 to 499 employees

Processes: A group of correlated actions and activities that are done to achieve a previously defined product, result or service.

Researchers: A professional who carries out academic or scientific research.

Technological Innovation: An expanded concept of innovation, applied for innovation driven to processes and products.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this section, it is described the methodology applied for this systematic literature review and it is explained the expected results.

In order to better organize the protocol, classify articles and apply evaluation criteria and quality assessments, the online application Parsif.al (available at https://parsif.al) was used.

This systematic literature review (SLR) is divided in three main steps:

Planning: In this first step the basic protocol review is defined. It involves stating the main objectives, defining the PICOC elements, research questions, keywords, search string, sources definition and evaluation (inclusion and exclusion criteria, selection procedure and quality assessment definition).
Conducting: As second step of this SLR, in this phase it is identified and selected studies based on evaluation criteria, extracted and summarized data and then evaluated the quality of each study.
Reporting: In the last phase of this SLR the communication strategy is defined.

A detailed flowchart of the RSL protocol is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: RSL Protocol Flowchart – Research data

3.1 PICOC Elements

PICOC method is a guideline that aims at an organized design and refinement of the proposed research questions. It is built on top of five different elements: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Context. In this SLR the PICOC elements were defined as follows:

Population: Innovative internationalized micro, small and medium enterprises, if necessary restricted to researchers and managers.
Intervention: Logistics and technological innovation with focus on international trade tools such as KPIs, processes and methods.
Comparison: Optional artifact for this SLR Internationalized MSMEs that have actions focused at innovation with Internationalized MSMEs that does not have actions focused at innovation

Outcome: Identify the main processes and tools that assists internationalized MSMEs in the technological and logistics innovation context.
Context: Innovation in internationalized MSMEs

3.2 Research Questions

In order to achieve the main objective of this SLR, this article intends to answer the research questions according to Table 1:

TABLE 1: Research questions and motivation.

#	Questions of SLR	Motivation
1	To what extent is it possible, in the context of foreign trade, to enhance the technological innovation and competitiveness of MSMEs?	Identify actions that enable the measurement of technological innovation and technique in internationalized MSMEs.
2	What are the main tools that enable competitiveness for internationalized MSMEs?	Identify the most common and used tools that enable competitiveness growth.
3	In the context of technological innovation, what are the main concerns, or vulnerabilities, of internationalized MSMEs?	Identify the main concerns, or vulnerabilities, of internationalized MSMEs
4	Is it possible to measure the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs?	Identify possible ways to measure the innovation level of an internationalized MSMEs

3.3 Search Strings and Research Bases

To define the search string, some word combinations were tested in three distinct libraries that were used in the process of conducting this SLR: Science@Direct, Springer Link and Emerald. In order to validate the search string, some test searches were conducted and after that a word refinement took place. After some fine adjustments, the string ran into the selected libraries with the objective to collect the mass of data to be analyzed.

The process to build the string consisted of joining synonyms using the boolean connectors “AND” and “OR”.

The string used in Science@Direct, Emerald and SpringerLink was:

((innovation) OR (technological innovation)) AND ((SME) OR (MSME) OR (Small and Medium Enterprises)) AND ((foreign trade) OR (international trade) OR (import) OR (export)) AND ((KPI) OR (method) OR (process) OR (tool))

3.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In this phase of the SLR, it was necessary to classify the data from the research libraries according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 2 : Inclusion Criteria

#	Inclusion Criteria
1	Papers from journals and magazines
2	Publications since 2016
3	Small, Micro and Medium Enterprises that practice international trade
4	Studies about innovation for MSMEs

TABLE 3 : Exclusion Criteria

#	Exclusion Criteria
1	Commercial products and publications
2	Duplicity
3	Papers of conferences and proceedings
4	Papers outside the research scope
5	Papers published until 2015
6	Papers with lack of technical basis
7	Papers with less than 4 pages
8	Papers without full access
9	Papers without the search string within the searched article title, abstract or keywords
10	Reflection papers
11	Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises that do not practice international Trade
12	Works not in english, spanish or portuguese as main language

3.5 Quality Criteria

Based on the selected studies by the Inclusion Criteria, an additional layer was applied: the Quality Criteria. These criteria are deeply connected to the Research Questions and helped to refine the selection of current and relevant material that has significant scope to help answer the Research Questions.

As shown in table 4, there are 5 Research Criteria and for each of them a score definition was adopted, so that for “Yes” answers a Quality Criteria received a score of 2.0, a “Partially” answer received a score of 1.0 and, at last, a “No” answer the 0.0 grade.

TABLE 4 : Quality Criteria

#	QualityCriteria
1	Are innovative internationalized enterprises the main focus of the paper?
2	Are the result evaluation methods described?
3	Are the methods clearly defined?
4	Does the paper answer any of the research questions?
5	Are the aims of the paper clearly stated?

After numerical analysis of the grades according to each response for the search criterion, the articles were organized according to their relevance to this SLR, from the highest to the lowest score. Since there are 5 Quality Criteria, the highest possible score was 10 (“YES” for all questions) and the lowest 0 (“No” for all). Thus, for the data extraction step, we selected the first 20 studies with the highest score.

3.6 Data Extraction

At this stage, the 20 articles were read and a questionnaire for data extraction was used in order to answer the Research Questions. This questionnaire consisted of 9 questions as shown in table 5. In order to facilitate the consultation and work of the information, all data were captured and summarized in a spreadsheet.

TABLE 5: Data Extraction

#	Data Extraction
1	ID
2	Title
3	Library
4	Author(s)
5	Affiliation
6	Year
7	Source of Publication
8	Country
9	Main Language

3.7 Threats to validity

The objective of the applied protocol in this SLR was to collect a substantial amount of data for analysis and, in this way, answer the Research Questions, seeking to neutralize any researcher’s bias and, in an impartial way, lead to relevant conclusions. However, since, despite the precautions taken, this process is not error-free, there is the possibility of occasional false or incomplete results, highlighted below in three possible threats.

The first one concerns the search string. Despite the refinement and detailing work already detailed, in order to guarantee a string that brought all the necessary correlation with the Research Questions, there is the possibility that relevant studies may have been left out of the analysis, due to a possible lack of keywords.

A second threat is linked to the choice of databases that were part of this research. It is not disputed that the selected databases are relevant to the work, however it cannot be overlooked that there is a possibility that relevant studies have been published in other databases not used in this work.

The third, and last, threat identified here lies in the assessment of the Quality Criteria. Since 20 papers were selected and later classified, there is a possibility that important studies were not included in the analysis.

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

This section presents a discussion and the results of the analysis of the collected data. At first it is provided an overview of the SRL procedure for the data extraction, followed by an approach for each of the Research Questions.

4.1 RSL Application Overview

As presented in Figure 2, the result of the search in the selected sources resulted in a total of 356 papers, 16% from Science Direct, 27% from SpringerLink and 57% from Emerald.

After the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria, hence called Evaluation Criteria, 91% of the articles were excluded and of the 8% accepted, 1% of them referred to systematic literature reviews
.

Figure 2: Papers selection procedure – Research data

Figure 3 presents the results of the search in the sources that totalized 356 papers. While Emerald represented 57% of the number of papers, SpringerLink represented 27% and ScienceDirect 16%.

Figure 3: Results of the search – Research data

At Figure 4 it is possible to visualize the representativeness of rejected, included, duplicated and other SLRS papers after the inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied.

Figure 4: Results of the search after applying evaluation criteria – Research data

Of the 21 included papers, 11 were from Emerald (52%), 7 from ScienceDirect (33%) and SpringerLink was responsible for the other 3 (15%). At Figure 5 it is possible to observe the results for each source, after the evaluation criteria is applied.

Figure 5 : Results after evaluation criteria are applied. – Research data

Figure 6 : Distribution of included papers per country. – Research data

As per Inclusion Criteria, included papers were classified according to their publication year. The evolution was identified as follows in figure 7: 5 papers in 2016, 3 in 2017, 4 in 2018, 5 in 2019 and 4 in 2020.

Figure 7: Number of included papers by publication year. – Research data

Figure 8 and Figure 9 presents the 21 papers [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [6], [34], [35] under an analysis of source of publication and language of publication respectively. As it can be seen, each article included has a different publication source and all papers evaluated were published in English.

Figure 8 :Papers by source of publication. – Research data

Figure 9: Number of included papers by publication year. – Research data

When analyzed under the perspective of the quality assessment checklist (Quality Criteria), included articles were ranked and displayed in Figure 10. As it can be seen, : [26], [33], [17], [6], [18] and [29] outstanded the other papers by having a “Yes” answer for all the Quality Criteria questions.

Figure 10: Quality Criteria ranking. – Research data

4.2 Research Question 1: To what extent is it possible, in the context of foreign trade, to enhance the technological innovation and competitiveness of MSMEs?

The 21 included papers [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [6], [34], [35], in some level, describe the innovation context for micro, small and medium enterprises. However, 12 of them [16], [18], [19], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [35] stand out under the optics of the foreign trade. Therefore, it is possible to infer that almost 60% of the selected articles talk about innovation and competitiveness of MSMEs under the context of foreign trade.

Due to the vast breadth of the subject, different geographic regions’ perspectives were found. From the 7 papers [16], [30], [33], [19], [29], [32], [18] that have a strict geographical perspective, 6 of them [16], [33], [19], [29], [32], [18] are focused on a country point of view and 1 [30] on a broader area:

Innovation and competitiveness are success factors that enable company growth. Under the MSMEs perspective, both of them are relevant and critical, since these companies compete not only with each other for the market, but also with larger companies that possess more resources. When the subject is directed to the context of internationalized MSMEs, it becomes even more important, as Falahat et al. [18] explains. According to [18] Malaysia’s internationalized MSMEs have their competitive advantage based on the ability to innovate in their products, in order to explore market opportunities and offer competitive prices.. Furthermore the study indicates the important role that pricing has as an indirect effect on the international performance of the internationalized MSMEs. This point confirms the critical role of pricing capacity for international success. Therefore, the study concludes that even if a company may have a competitive advantage through product innovation, the application of a competitive price can be an essential factor to capitalize on this product innovation.

Exposito and Sanchis-Llopis [19] suggest that, depending on the company’s management and policy objectives, the focus should be on specific types of innovation in order to encourage the participation of MSMEs in import and export operations. Saridakis et al. [21] confirms [19] suggestion by evaluating through probit regression the association between innovation and export propensity. The result of the article showed that being an innovative MSME increases the probability of internationalization by 8.6 percentage points, when compared to a non-innovative SME. The results from [19] also showed that, for innovative firms, innovation makes the probability of operating exports 15.4 percentage points higher than it would otherwise be. In summary, the results showed that innovation is positively and significantly linked to the internationalization of SMEs, supporting the hypothesis that innovative SMEs are more likely to internationalize than non-innovative SMEs.

The same positive result is described by [24] when stating that one of the main outputs is the positive influence of international expansion on the innovative performance of MSMEs. The authors go on to say that companies should see internationalization not only as a way to expand sales, but also as a tool to improve the company’s capacity for innovation.

On the other hand, Azar and Ciabuschi [31] found evidence that innovation in companies significantly precedes technological innovation. This shows that improvement actions focused on a company’s strategy, structure, administrative procedures and systems, resulting from organizational innovations, end up raising the capacity for innovation, in addition to creating an appropriate environment for the adoption of technological innovation. Rodil et al. [32] found the same evidence and concluded that the variety of organizational innovations matter when analyzing the export behavior of firms. More on that can be found at Azar and Drogendijk [35], when they state that the benefits of organizational innovations can help in the adoption of other technological innovations, such as the use of integrated process technologies.

To synthesize and answer the first Research Question, it can be stated, based on the results of this RSL, that it is possible to increase the technological innovation and competitiveness of MSMEs through organizational innovation actions. As described by [31], “innovation is a source of competitive advantage in international markets, which is a crucial antecedent of a firm export performance”.

4.3 Research Question 2: What are the main tools that enable competitiveness for internationalized MSMEs?

Since the competitiveness aspect is the one that will enable an enterprise to endure in its life cycle, one may ask what are the main tools that enable competitiveness for internationalized MSMEs? To start answering this question it was necessary to separate the articles in those that focus on this type of approach from those that do not. Therefore, 9 papers [16], [17], [18], [20], [24], [26], [31], [34] and [35] focus on the issue of competitiveness of MSMEs.

Competitiveness can be described as the quality of being equally good or better than similar ones of a comparable nature. Despite this understanding, when dealing with internationalized MSMEs, the concept of competitiveness starts to receive a deeper meaning, since when competing with big companies, market conditions are more severe for MSMEs.

A number of papers can be found stating that innovation can be described as one of the most important sources of competitive advantage. Henley and Song [17] declare that “Innovation is recognised as a source of competitive advantage through which firms transform capabilities and resources into performance outcomes.”.

Technological innovation is paramount for the long-term competitiveness of companies, regardless of their size. From the perspective of MSMEs, in a dynamic and competitive environment, they need to constantly stay ahead in terms of technology to remain competitive in relation to competitors [20]. In fact, Ndiaye et al. [26] affirms that access to international markets and the internationalization of MSMEs is a strategic instrument for their competitiveness and future development.

But not only the adoption of technological innovation (and its radicality grade) increases the competitiveness of MSMEs. The number of a high number of innovations (i.e. the extent of innovation) may increase a company’s competitiveness and effectiveness. Therefore, the number of innovations adopted by a company also indicates it’s innovative capacity. Organizations with great potential for innovation are able to develop competitive advantages and achieve better performance [31]. Azar and Drogendijk [35] state that the influence of technological innovation on the performance of exporting companies can be motivated by the competitive advantages that these companies obtain with the entrance of new technologies, more profitable production techniques and new processes and products resulting from these innovations. Technological innovations allow companies to respond quickly to rapid changes, both in technologies and in the market environment, in a highly competitive global scenario [36].

Another point highlighted by [36] is that the implementation of organizational innovation as an answer to uncertainties in the external environment allows companies to improve their performance in general. Changes in the company’s strategy and administrative processes as a result of business innovations end up improving internal communication, teamwork and collaboration within the organization, which ends up generating competitive advantages for the company.

A factor that can leverage the competitiveness of internationalized MSMEs is government regulation. Although little explored in the works included in this systematic literature review, one of them stands out. In a specific analysis of Chinese MSMEs, Liu and Xie [16] argue that environmental law has a boosting effect on the export competitiveness of China’s industry. They state that environmental regulation also differs strongly in the instruments by which it affects a number of approaches to technological innovation. Independent Research and Development (R&D) can be covered by environmental regulation through increased costs, which ends up limiting export competitiveness, while the introduction of technology can be affected by the offsetting effect of innovation itself, which favors competitiveness of export.

Therefore, in order to answer the second Research Question, it can be stated that there is a general understanding in the literature that innovation is one of the main ways to increase the competitiveness of internationalized MSMEs. This factor, in addition to achieving its objective in terms of competitiveness, also yields valuable results in the very internal dynamics of these companies. Another point that can be assessed as an influence on increased competitiveness is the issue of government regulation. However, since government actions tend to reach the entire market, once a certain sector benefits, all companies in this sector start to receive the same benefit. Thus, when we look at the issue from the perspective of individual company performance, the degree and quantity of innovations are the factors that most help to increase competitiveness.

4.4 Research Question 3: In the context of technological innovation, what are the main concerns, or vulnerabilities, of internationalized MSMEs?

Although most of the included papers address the issue of the greatest vulnerabilities and concerns of internationalized MSMEs, only 10 of them [20], [34], [16], [28], [22], [33], [6], [30], [21], [24] do so in the context of technological innovation. In the sense of concerns and vulnerabilities, it is possible to split this matter into two different perspectives.

The first one can be described by external factors. External factors are understood as issues that do not depend on actions directly by companies. On the contrary, in this case, situations arise in the environment in which the company is inserted and in which it will need to react to conditions imposed by the government or the market. These are situations where companies are recurrently faced with challenges as they react to changes in environmental factors, such as the need for increasingly faster delivery times or the emergence of markets and global standards that ensure better quality for the good or service [20].

A regionalized approach can be found in [33] and [16], as they raise local vulnerabilities for Brazil and China, two of the largest developing economies in the world. Oura et al. [33] states that it is not enough that Brazilian MSMEs are able to innovate to export their goods or services. They must also be able to master numerous difficult situations in their own country, such as high logistical costs, challenging infrastructure, among other challenges. Liu and Xie [16], on the other hand, raise questions regarding chinese global trade concern, such as:

low air quality in a number of chinese regions, which reflects the high environmental cost of China’s economic growth, as well as;
the low-quality and low-priced products model, popularly known as the “Made in China” template and how it results in deterioration of China’s terms of trade.

The second perspective refers to the internal factors. These factors relate to directions and actions, whose responsibility is inherent to the internationalized MSME. In other words, internal factors can be understood as those that suffer little or no influence from external decisions, whether from the government or the market. In this sense, 7 works stand out: [28], [34], [6], [22], [21], [30], [24].

Organizations that do not have a process to improve their goods and services become more vulnerable to competition on a global scale. Internationalization can lead companies to innovate to survive and compete effectively in international markets. Despite this, not every internationalized MSME innovates. Thus, a point that needs to be explored by

MSMEs is to understand when and how internationalization is a key factor for these MSMEs to innovate [24]. It is common for MSMEs with low access to resources to prioritize essential technologies over innovation, which is why they often need internal marketing resources [28]. Furthermore, Bianchi et al. [30] states that the process of recognizing international business opportunities is a critical component of the strategy focused on the internationalization of a company. In other words, the appetite for internationalization needs to be present within the company itself.

Ensuring competitiveness is not a simple activity for MSMEs, as they are more susceptible to a wide range of problems, such as limited resources, low access to cutting-edge technologies, limited access to bank financing, high impact of regulation and obligations in its supply chain, among others. Technological innovations help companies establish their competencies and boost them in competition with their competitors. MSMEs with an appetite for internationalization need to identify which are the innovation enablers [34].

Although innovative MSMEs are more likely to internationalize than non-innovative ones, the relationship between innovation and internationalization differs according to the type of innovation used and the degree of novelty of the innovation [21]. Saridakis et al. [21] goes on and affirm that MSMEs that innovate are more likely to export than MSMEs that are not innovative. By possessing different degrees of innovation, MSMEs that currently have radical innovations are more likely to be successful in internationalization than non-innovative MSMEs. Furthermore, MSMEs that introduce incremental innovation are more likely to internationalize than non-innovative MSMEs.

The concern to develop long-term relationships with suppliers and customers also helps with the visibility and reputation of small businesses. This factor helps to increase its capacity to have access to a greater number of international suppliers and, in this way, also ensure access to a greater flow of ideas to innovate in its goods and services [22].

Great contribution to answer this Research Question could be found in the work of Bogdanova et al. [6]. In this paper, the authors detail in 5 topics the main concerns of internationalized MSMEs in the context of innovation:

The first problem is linked to the high risk of innovative activities. Unlike big companies, innovative MSMEs generally do not have the means to use expensive software for risk management, in addition to retaining a risk management specialist on their staff;

The second item is the complexity of the optimal organizational structure. In order to increase the chance of success of innovative activities, it is appropriate to carry out more than one innovation project at the same time;

The third topic deals with the financial aspect related to carrying out innovative activities. Making innovative projects requires financial investments, which innovative MSMEs sometimes do not have. Obtaining external investments can be challenging given the high level of risk and lack of collateral due to the limited assets of MSMEs;
The fourth problem concerns marketing. In other words, the dissemination of innovative products on the market. Doing large-scale marketing research means high expenditure of time, human and financial resources that innovative MSMEs, in most cases, do not have;
The fifth and last problem presented is people management. Encouraging innovative activity requires training, which requires additional expenses that the innovative MSME may not be able to afford.

In order to solve the five problem points listed above, the authors propose a model to solve innovative MSMEs management problems in the context of global competition, presented in the Figure 11:

Figure 11
Model to solve innovative MSMEs management problems in the context of global competition.
Adapted from [6].

Thus, in order to answer the third Research Question, it can be inferred that there are basically two main groups of concerns and vulnerabilities regarding the context of technological innovation applied to internationalized MSMEs. While the first group deals with external issues, defined here as those that occur due to government decisions or market factors in which companies have little or no influencing factor, the second group speaks of internal issues, that is, actions in which the a company has the capacity to influence or decide, since these are factors that occur “within the walls” of companies.

The first group includes national economic, environmental and logistical challenges. All of them with regional characteristics that bring difficulties to compare internationalized MSMEs from the same segment but from different countries and contexts.

In the second niche are grouped characteristics inherent to the management of internationalized MSMEs and, therefore, more universal than the issues in the first group.

4.5 Research Question 4: Is it possible to measure the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs?

In order to answer the fourth research question, 9 papers [25], [28], [23], [33], [17], [22], [21], [24], [32] were distinguished among the total of papers included in this systematic literature review.

Among the listed papers, the number of patents, methodology used to quantify and measure the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs, stands out.

Although the number of patents may not be the ideal methodology to assess innovative performance, since not all innovations can be patented, a range of studies in the literature indicate that the assessment by the number of patents is a solid measure of the innovation performance of companies [24]. Innovation plays an important role in motivating and helping companies to internationalize and acts as a critical mediating link in this process. Both the level and type of innovation are also considered important. Innovation benefits MSMEs through a learning effect through which various productivity improvements are achieved [17].

Ramírez-Alesón and Fernández-Olmos [22] state that There are a variety of innovation-focused performance measures and indicators.The R&D effort variable is used in a variety of innovation studies as a measure of innovation input. This measure is calculated as the ratio of spending on R&D to total sales. The company’s export activity is measured as the ratio between exports and total sales. They also state that as two different innovation performance measures can be used: product and process innovation, since each represents a different dimension of innovation, although decisions derived from both may be mutually related.

Another work that brings the measurement of innovation in MSMEs divided into more factors is [33]. In this work, the authors defined the capacity for innovation as a construct composed of seven dimensions of capacity:

Research and Development;
Marketing;
Manufacturing;
Learning;
Organizational;
Resource exploitation;
Strategic.

It is a more complex methodology when compared to the others, although it detects some dimensions that are not taken into account in other studies that also sought to correlate innovation and internationalization. Rodil et al. [32] provided evidence that the variety of innovation in a company can be taken as an indicator of engagement in the innovation activities themselves. This conclusion suggests the importance of technological resources as key pieces within organizations.

As discussed in [21], by deepening insights into the concepts of measuring the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs, the research argues that combined measures of innovation have the potential to further clarify the relationship between innovation and MSMEs performance. One example of a different approach for this matter is detailed in [25]. In this paper, the authors explain that the EIS (European Innovation Scoreboard) assesses and compares the innovation performance of the members of the European Union through its own index, using 25 indicators classified into three groups and eight dimensions. They are:

Enablers
a. Human resources;
b. Excellente Open Research System;
c. Finance and Support
Firm activities
a. Firm investments;
b. Links and entrepreneurship;
c. Intellectual assets;
Products
a. Innovative;
Economic effects.

Another methodology presented by the authors is the one adopted at the GII (Global Innovation Index). The object here is to measure and compare the innovation performance of countries around the world through four indices:

Innovation inputs;
Production of innovation;
Overall GII score;
Innovation efficiency.

Finally, [28] addressed the issue of the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs through a survey with companies and, specifically on the topic of innovation, asked the following questions:

Our senior management always encourages new product ideas for internatinal markets;
Our senior management is very receptive to innovative ways of exploring internatinal market opportunities;
Our senior management believes that the opportunity in international markets is greater than in the domestic market;
Our senior management continually seeks new export markets.

The results of this research confirmed the authors’ hypothesis that international entrepreneurial orientation did indeed have a significant positive effect on technological and marketing capabilities.

In summary, it can be inferred that there is no single methodology for measuring the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs. The alternatives available in the literature range from simple models, through the analysis of the number of patents and the relationship between exports with innovation and total sales, to more robust models, such as the European Index Scoreboard and the Global Innovation Index. Therefore, for the purpose of adjusting expectations when assessing the company’s level of innovation, the application of the methodology that best converges with the reality of the company in question is suggested.

5 CONCLUSION

In this article, we present a systematic review of the literature that investigates tthe extension and application of technological innovative processes and tools in the context of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and how these innovations may assist them in doing business with international stakeholders. The most relevant findings from this review and their implications for future research are as follows.

In this systematic literature review, we first investigated the existence of studies dealing with technological innovation in the context of internationalized micro, small and medium-sized companies. Unfortunately, from the exploration of the literature, it was concluded that the focus of the current work is on the issue of technological innovation for internationalized companies, however with a bias of looking at large companies.

After analyzing the articles included in this SLR, this work concludes that although there is a certain gap in the literature focused on the topic of technological innovation for micro, small and medium-sized internationalized companies, all four Research Questions in this SLR could be answered satisfactorily. In short:

1 It is possible to increase the technological innovation and competitiveness of MSMEs through organizational innovation actions;

2 The quantity and degree of innovation are two of the main tools that enable competitiveness for internationalized MSMEs;

3 Two distinct groups make up the main concerns and vulnerabilities of internationalized MSMEs. They are external factors (linked to governments and markets) and internal factors (linked to company management);

4 It is possible to measure the level of innovation of internationalized MSMEs in different ways. The spectrum of methodologies available ranges from analyzing the number of company patents to comparisons with regional (for example, the European Innovation Scoreboard) or global (such as the Global Innovation Index) indexes.

Hence, this work provides some contributions to academia, market and society, among which it is worth highlighting the effort to bring together a range of different perspectives on the internationalization of MSMEs in the context of technological innovation, with a focus on practical issues that can help these companies to ensure their operation in an increasingly challenging and complex global scenario. Thus, this work can guide the managers of these companies to focus their efforts on applying the best methodology for their companies. Consequently, these organizations will be able to fulfill with excellence one of the most important functions that a company can perform: generate revenue and value for their country, generate employment and income, and improve the social context of the community around them.

It should be noted, however, that this work has some limitations, providing guidance for future research. Although the different approaches to technological innovation in the context of internationalized MSMEs have been pointed out and taken into account, the focus of this work remained on the generalized assessment of internationalized MSMEs, it being clear that companies from different countries have different contexts. In addition, it is worth noting that organizations with different sizes and characteristics also differ in terms of innovation possibilities, and it can sometimes be more difficult for a micro company to operate in a global context than for a medium company to do so. Both topics are definitely worth more research in the future.

REFERENCES

1 L. Karlsson, “Back to the future of Customs: A new AEO paradigm will transform the global supply chain for the better”, World Cust. J., vol. 11, p. 23–34, 2017.

2 A. B. Oliveira, R. W. Caldas, e M. S. Mota, “Políticas Nacionais De Desenvolvimento E Comércio Internacional: Um Estudo Comparativo Entre O Mercosul E Nafta”, Desenvolv. Reg. Com Políticas Econômicas Estratégicas E Sustentáveis Gov. Munic. Estaduais E Fed. Integrado, vol. 1, n^o2, 2020.

3 M. Bagheri, S. Mitchelmore, V. Bamiatzi, e K. Nikolopoulos, “Internationalization Orientation in SMEs: The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation”, J. Int. Manag., vol. 25, n^o1, p. 121–139, 2019, Acessado: ago. 15, 2021. [Online]. Disponível em:https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intman/v25y2019i1 121-139.html

4 S. U. Khan, A. Shah, e M. F. Rizwan, “Do Financing Constraints Matter for Technological andNon-technological Innovation? A (Re)examination of Developing Markets”, Emerg. Mark. Finance Trade, vol. 57, n^o9, p. 2739–2766, jul. 2021, doi:10.1080/1540496X.2019.1695593.

5 A. Omri, “Technological innovation and sustainable development : Does the stage of development matter?”, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 83, p. 106398, jul. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106398.

6 S. V. Bogdanova, I. V. Kozel, L. V. Ermolina, e T. N. Litvinova, “Management of small innovational enterprise under the conditions of global competition : possibilities and threats”, 2016.

7 S. Iandolo e A. M. Ferragina, “Does persistence in internationalization and innovation influence firms’ performance?”, J. Econ. Stud., vol. 46, n ^o7, p. 1345–1364, nov. 2019, doi: 10.1108/JES-04-2019-0152.

8 H. Indrawati, Caska, e Suarman, “Barriers to technological innovations of SMEs: how to solve them?”, Int. J. Innov. Sci., vol. 12, n ^o5, p. 545–564, nov. 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJIS-04-2020-0049.

9 A. Natalicchio, L. Ardito, T. Savino, e V. Albino, “Managing knowledge assets for open innovation: a systematic literature review”, J. Knowl. Manag., vol.1, n^o6, p. 1362–1383, out. 2017, doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0516.

10 G. Zanello, X. Fu, P. Mohnen, e M. Ventresca, “The Creation and Diffusion of Innovation in Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review”, J. Econ. Surv., vol. 30, n^o5, p. 884–912, 2016, doi: 10.1111/joes.12126.

11 M. Saunila, “Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature”, J. Innov. Knowl., vol. 5, n^o4, p. 260–265, out. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.11.002.