Small Bus Econ

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00238-6

Born global and well educated: start-up survival

through fuzzy set analysis
Nicola Del Sarto & Alberto Di Minin & Giulio Ferrigno &
Andrea Piccaluga

Accepted: 23 July 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract Although start-ups’ survival has been widely
investigated, only few studies have focussed on the
impact of the combined effect of firms’ internal re-
sources. Drawing upon the resource-based view
(RBV), we selected four internal resources influencing
start-ups’ survival (R&D activity, advertising activity,
export activity, and human capital) and we applied the
fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to
examine which interactions among the said internal
resources affect start-ups’ survival. We used a unique
dataset of 38 start-ups accelerated in Italy in 2013. Our
findings suggest that, among the various combinations
of internal resources considered, the interaction between
export activity and human capital is the only one that
affects start-ups’ survival. On one hand, the interaction
between these two resources amplifies the effect of the
learning by exporting on start-ups’ survival. On the
other hand, export activity provides the knowledge
N. Del Sarto (*) : A. Di Minin : G. Ferrigno : A. Piccaluga
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Institute of Management, Piazza
Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy
e-mail: nicola.delsarto@santannapisa.it
A. Di Minin
e-mail: a.diminin@santannapisa.it
G. Ferrigno
e-mail: giulio.ferrigno@santannapisa.it
A. Piccaluga
e-mail: a.piccaluga@santannapisa.it
necessary to exploit the potential of qualified human
capital.
Keywords fsQCA . Resource-based view of the firm .
Start-ups . Firm survival . And Italy
JEL classifications L21 . L26 . M13
1 Introduction
Survival is one of the main problems faced by start-ups
(Criscuolo et al. 2012; Eklund et al. 2018; Strotmann
2007), especially in contexts of extreme uncertainty and
volatility (Geroski 1995). Although start-ups are capa-
ble of bringing new ideas and introduce new products
and innovative processes into the market, many start-
ups fail at the very beginning of their life cycle (Picken
2017). In fact, in their early stage, start-ups struggle
because of limited financial resources (Smilor 1997), a
lack of prior start-up experience in the founding team
(Gruber et al. 2008), a lack of legitimacy to attract
skilled employees (Zott and Huy 2007).
Consequently, the literature has tried to identify
which factors allow for the survival or lead to the failure
of start-ups (Agarwal and Audretsch 2001; Baptista
et al. 2014). More specifically, scholars acknowledged
two groups of factors: one referring to factors external to
the firm (i.e., environmental factors) (Ebert et al. 2019;
Highfield and Smiley 1987) and one referred to internal
factors (Agarwal and Audretsch 2001). In this study, we
focus on internal resources. First, they are considered as

fundamental resources for the development and survival
of all types of firms, low-tech as well as high-tech
(Barney 1991). Second, most studies on firm perfor-
mance and competitive advantage report a positive ef-
fect of internal resources on firm survival (Cefis and
Marsili 2005; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008;
Geroski et al. 2010). Third, extant literature has empir-
ically verified the direct effect of internal resources on
firm survival (Boyer and Blazy 2014; Mata and Portugal
2002; Ugur et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2017).
Despite this progress, we noted that extant research
has been limited to the study of each internal resource in
isolation and has neglected to analyze the relationships
and interactions between internal resources themselves.
Understanding this issue is important for two reasons.
First, the importance of the interactions among start-
ups’ internal resources has been recognized as crucial
for the survival prospects of start-ups (Denrell et al.
2003; Hult and Ketchen 2001). In fact, many authors
advocate that the exploration of interactions among
start-up’s internal resources contributes at creating a
unique asset which reinforces the competitive advantage
of the start-up (Belso-Martinez et al. 2013; Galbreath
2005; Hult and Ketchen 2001). Second, an analysis of
synergistic interactions among resources can also reveal
the presence of beneficial effects of the combined use of
start-ups’ internal resources. For instance, it might show
whether a specific internal resource amplifies the influ-
ence of other internal resources on start-up survival
(Newbert 2007; Yang et al. 2017).
Actually, Yang et al. (2017) have addressed this
issue. In particular, the authors investigated how the
combination of three internal resources (i.e., R&D re-
sources, internal finance, and scientifically skilled em-
ployees) influences the survival of start-ups located in a
high-tech park located in Beijing, China. Drawing on
the RBV, a theory which explains start-up survival in
terms of heterogeneity of tangible and intangible inter-
nal resources (Barney 1991), the authors identified the
three internal resources and found that their combined
use has a direct effect on the survival chances of start-
ups. This insight contributed to RBV highlighting how
the synergistic interaction of internal resources influ-
ences start-ups’ survival. Notwithstanding that, in our
opinion, such an approach has two weaknesses.
First, we noted that in their study, they do not con-
sider two internal resources which, according to the
RBV (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008), are
important in determining start-ups’ survival: (1) export
N. D. Sarto et al.
activity and (2) advertising activity. Accordingly, export
activity influences start-ups’ survival because of “learn-
ing by exporting” mechanism (Eliasson et al. 2012).
Firms have access to new information and knowledge
that would not be available otherwise, helping them to
develop inimitable capabilities that can improve their
productivity (Eliasson et al. 2012). Moreover, some
models predict that exporting firms are less likely to fail
than non-exporting ones (Bernard et al. 2003). Adver-
tising activity helps firms to develop market-based ca-
pabilities that are inimitable by competitors and help
them to survive more than firms that do not conduct
advertising activities (Jindal and McAlister 2015).
Moreover, firms that develop innovations and carry
out advertising improve their efficiency, which makes
them able to survive (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-
Castillejo 2008; Geroski 1995).
Second, we observed a methodological concern.
In their study, the authors use the Complementary
Log-Log Model (cloglog), whereas we believe that
the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA) is a more suitable methodology to capture
the impact of the interactions among variables on an
outcome of interest (Ragin 1987; Schneider and
Wagemann 2012). In fact, it is widely acknowledged
in extant literature that common statistical methods
are unable to accommodate multiple alternative paths
to an outcome (Woodside 2013). In this vein, fsQCA
complements the quantitative methods because it ad-
mits the principle of equifinality, which is the possi-
bility that there exist several different combinations
of attributes that are able to produce the same out-
come (Ashmos and Huber 1987; Gresov and Drazin
1997). Moreover, fsQCA presents specific character-
istics that distinguish it from traditional quantitative
and qualitative methods. Actually, Vis (2012) argues
that, whereas regression analysis strives to explain
the average effects of certain variables (causes), QCA
seeks to identify the causes of particular outcomes
(effects). Therefore, fsQCA is well suited to address
our research question because it treats cases as con-
figurations of conditions, thereby allowing re-
searchers to identify whether some of these configu-
rations are associated with an outcome of interest
(Aversa et al. 2015). In line with this argument, we
argue that fsQCA is particularly adequate for exam-
ining which configurations among start-ups’ internal
resources are associated with a result of interest, in
our case their survival.
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
These two observations lead us to submit this work.
More specifically, we ask: which interactions among
which firms’ internal resources affect start-up survival?
Drawing on the literature which uses the RBV to study
the impact of internal resources on start-ups’ survival,
we identified four internal resources: (1) R&D activity
(Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008; Yang et al.
2017), (2) advertising activity (Esteve-Pérez and
Mañez-Castillejo 2008), (3) export activity (Esteve-
Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008), and (4) human cap-
ital (Geroski et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2017). A sample of
38 Italian start-ups was used to examine how each
possible configuration among these internal resources
affects start-ups’ survival. The results of the fsQCA are
consistent with the implications of the RBV which
considers internal resources as crucial for the achieve-
ment of a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney
1991; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008). In fact,
we highlight that synergistic interaction between some
internal firm resources, which are intangible and inimi-
table by other firms, influences start-ups’ survival.
Regarding the structure of this article, Section 2 ex-
plores the literature about internal factors of start-ups
and uses the RBV to identify the resources that affect
start-ups’ survival. Section 3 describes the fsQCA meth-
odology. Section 4 presents the empirical results.
Section 5 discusses the results of our study within the
start-ups’ survival literature. Section 6 highlights the
conclusions of the study, its limitations, and avenues
for future research.
2 Theoretical background
The literature about start-ups’ survival branches out into
two main strands: one regarding external factors
(Highfield and Smiley 1987) and one concerning inter-
nal factors (Agarwal and Audretsch 2001). The second
one mainly regards four key resources (i.e., R&D, ad-
vertising, export activity, and human capital).
2.1 Start-up survival: an analysis of the literature
Survival is one of the main problems faced by start-ups
(Criscuolo et al. 2012; Eklund et al. 2018; Strotmann
2007), especially in contexts of extreme uncertainty and
volatility (Geroski 1995). Although start-ups are capa-
ble of bringing new ideas and introduce new products
and innovative processes into the market, many start-
ups fail at the very beginning of their life cycle (Picken
2017). Consequently, the literature has studied the fac-
tors which explain the survival or failure of start-ups
(Agarwal and Audretsch 2001; Baptista et al. 2014).
Scholars classified these factors into two groups: (1)
external factors (environmental forces) (Highfield and
Smiley 1987; Tavassoli and Carbonara 2014) and (2)
internal factors (personal characteristics of the entrepre-
neurial team and firm characteristics) (Agarwal and
Audretsch 2001; Cabrer-Borrás and Belda 2018;
Colombelli et al. 2016; Colombo and Delmastro 2001).
Highfield and Smiley (1987) were the first scholars
to study the first group of factors. They found that some
external forces, such as low macroeconomic growth,
low interest rates, and high unemployment, increase
the number of new start-ups entering the market. Other
scholars, in contrast, studied the effect of the environ-
ment on firm survival at regional level. For example,
Tavassoli and Carbonara (2014) highlighted how
knowledge spillovers increase learning opportunities
for firms, thus increasing their chances of survival.
Moreover, according to Ebert et al. (2019), the presence
of spillovers within a region is positively associated with
the survival rate of start-ups.
On the other hand, internal factors refer to personal
characteristics of the entrepreneurial team as well as to
other firms’ characteristics. The former includes the
founder’s previous business experience (Cooper et al.
1994; Sarasvathy et al. 2013; Van Praag 2003), level of
education (Davidsson and Honig 2003; Ganotakis
2012), and attitudes to recognize an opportunity or risk
propensity (Devece et al. 2016). Entrepreneurs with
previous experience seem to have a better understanding
of the entrepreneurial processes and of the different
phases that characterize the life cycle of start-ups com-
pared with inexperienced entrepreneurs (Van Praag
2003). Moreover, other studies assert that the quality
of the entrepreneurs’ education is a further determining
factor for start-up survival. In particular, the literature
has found that highly educated entrepreneurs have great-
er access to financial and social capital (Davidsson and
Honig 2003; Gartner et al. 2012). Finally, some studies
have shown that, when work experience is specific to
the sector, the entrepreneurs’ human capital has a strong
effect on the probability of survival of their start-ups
(Cooper et al. 1994).
Firms’ characteristics are among the most commonly
investigated factors as predictors of start-up survival.
These factors include the initial size of the firm

(Agarwal and Audretsch 2001), the industrial sector
(Lin and Huang 2008), the innovation intensity and
R&D activity (Boyer and Blazy 2014; Colombelli
et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2017), the possession of patents
(Wagner and Cockburn 2010), export activity (Cavusgil
and Knight 2015), advertising activity (Esteve-Pérez
and Mañez-Castillejo 2008), human and relational cap-
ital (Cooper et al. 1994; Geroski et al. 2010; Semrau and
Hopp 2016), and financial resources (Schäfer and
Talavera 2009).
The attention to the study of start-up’s character-
istics is very important and the literature has analyzed
these internal factors through a multitude of different
theoretical lenses. In this paper, we examine the
literature using the RBV theory to shed light on the
most important firms’ characteristics that, according
to this theory, affect start-up survival (Esteve-Pérez
and Mañez-Castillejo 2008). In fact, the RBV empha-
sizes more than any other theoretical lens the role of
firms’ internal resources, both tangible (e.g., initial
capital, plants and equipment, technology, financial
resources) and intangible (e.g., human capital, inno-
vation, organizational routines, managerial skills, or
culture), in the development and maintenance of a
competitive advantage that can guarantee start-up
survival (Esteve-Pérez et al. 2008; Thornhill and
Amit 2003).
We analyzed the empirical literature in search of the
most important internal factors which, according to
RBV (Barney 1991; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo
2008), influence start-ups’ survival. We noted that
scholars agree on the importance of the following five
internal resources affecting start-ups’ survival: (1) R&D
activity (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008; Yang
et al. 2017), (2) advertising activity (Esteve-Pérez and
Mañez-Castillejo 2008), (3) export activity (Esteve-
Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008), (4) human capital
(Geroski et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2017), and (5) financial
resources (Schäfer and Talavera 2009; Yang et al. 2017).
We proceed by explaining the relevance of each
internal resource for start-ups’ survival. First, extant
research shows that firms investing more in R&D activ-
ity experience higher survival probability rates (Cefis
and Marsili 2005; Hall 1987). Second, the literature
suggests that start-ups that carry out advertising activity
improve their efficiency, which makes them able to
survive (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008;
Geroski 1995). Third, numerous studies indicate that
start-ups conducting exporting activity are often more
N. D. Sarto et al.
likely to have higher survival rates than non-exporting
start-ups (Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Wagner 2012).
Fourth, extant research found that human capital, which
also includes level of education of the entrepreneurial
team, affects start-ups’ survival (Cooper et al. 1994;
Geroski et al. 2010; Mata and Portugal 2002). Finally,
some other scholars (Coleman et al. 2013; Schäfer and
Talavera 2009) pointed to the importance of financial
resources impact on start-ups’ survival. However, as the
aim of our study is to identify which interactions among
which resources lead to start-ups’ survival, in our anal-
ysis, we do not consider financial resources. A recent
study shows, in fact, that financial resources, as defined
by Schäfer and Talavera (2009), do not affect start-up
survival when combined with other internal resources
such as human capital and R&D activity (Yang et al.
2017). Our research aims to make a step forward by
studying the presence of other interactive effects, there-
by excluding financial resources from our analysis.
Given their grounding in the RBV, we believe that
these four internal resources (i.e., R&D activity, adver-
tising activity, export activity, and human capital) could
improve our understanding on how the interactions
among these internal resources influence start-ups’ sur-
vival. We conclude this literature review analyzing what
had been discussed in terms of interactions among in-
ternal resources. Specifically, interactive effects among
internal resources will be the central dimension that we
consider in this research.
2.1.1 R&D activity
According to the RBV, the firms’ ability to develop
distinctive capabilities largely determines their survival
prospects (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984). A large em-
pirical literature suggests that firms investing more in
R&D have higher survival rates (Cefis and Marsili
2005; Hall 1987). In a study of US manufacturing firms,
Hall (1987) observed that firms investing in R&D ex-
penditure experience higher survival probability rates
and this effect is stronger for firms that do not patent
than for firms that do. Esteve-Pérez et al. (2004) found
that firms investing in R&D activities experience an exit
risk that is 57% lower than firms that do not. Roberts
(2003) suggested that firms that aggressively invested in
market, innovation, and customer quality are more like-
ly to survive and prosper. The investments in R&D
activity are related to whether the firm decides to
“make” or to “buy” technology (Esteve-Pérez and
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
Mañez-Castillejo 2008). On the one hand, the “buying”
option implies purchasing technology directly from out-
side providers while the “making” option implies uncer-
tainty regarding the successful outcome of the innova-
tion. On the other hand, while the “buying” option
implies being dependent on external technology and
does not guarantee specific competitive advantages for
the firm, the “making” option allows the firm to develop
its own specific technology. However, despite these are
crucial for the acquisition of assets and capabilities
(Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-
Castillejo 2008), investments in R&D do not necessarily
guarantee start-ups’ survival (Audretsch et al. 2014;
Hult and Ketchen 2001; Ugur et al. 2016). For instance,
Czarnitzki and Toole (2013) reported that managers
consider larger projects significantly riskier.
2.1.2 Advertising activity
According to the RBV (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-
Castillejo 2008), start-ups must develop intangible re-
sources that differentiate their products from those of
their competitors. Sharma and Kesner (1996) argued
that firms often spend large sums of money in advertis-
ing activity and that these investments can be considered
an intangible resource that affects new firm survival.
Further, advertising activities may have considerable
spillovers to the whole firm (Klette 1996), and transform
the firms’ capabilities and competences in other areas
increasing their survival rate (Geroski 1995). In this
vein, Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo (2008) found
that firms that engage in advertising are more likely to
develop specific business capabilities that are inimitable
by competitors and help them to survive more than firms
that do not conduct advertising activities. However,
some other scholars advocate that start-ups’ survival is
negatively related to advertising. For instanceAudretsch
(1991) argued that the effect of advertising activity on
firm revenues is subject to economies of scale that result
from the increasing effectiveness of advertising message
per unit of output.
2.1.3 Export activity
Management scholars have also studied the link be-
tween internationalization of start-ups and their survival
(Cavusgil and Knight 2015; Mudambi and Zahra 2007).
The strategy of internationalization and participation in
a global market moderate the impact of the firms’
resources favoring survival (Albornoz et al. 2016; Sui
and Baum 2014). According to Cavusgil and Knight
(2015), “born global firms” develop capabilities which
help them to survive more than local firms. In this vein,
Zhang et al. (2018) found that international trade allows
domestic knowledge-intensive firms to benefit from
crossborder spillover effects, especially in the context
of emerging markets, thereby increasing their chances of
survival. Some models that analyze firms engaging in
international trade (Bernard et al. 2003) predict that
exporting firms are less likely to fail than non-
exporting ones. In these models, the relationship be-
tween exports and survival is driven by the relatively
higher productivity of exporters compared with non-
exporters (Esteve-Pérez et al. 2008). Moreover, some
studies show that during economic downturns,
exporting firms are often more likely to have higher
survival rates than those of non-exporting firms (Wag-
ner 2012). In addition, numerous studies illustrate the
positive relationship between exporting and firm surviv-
al (or firm performance) during recessionary periods in
the internationalization literature (Cowling et al. 2015;
Lee et al. 2004). Bridges and Guariglia (2008) suggest
that firms can benefit from exports and internationaliza-
tion during a recession because of the diversification of
financial sources as well as the low dependency on
domestic demand and cycle. Other studies found that
export activity improves the survival of firms through
the “learning by exporting” mechanism (Eliasson et al.
2012). Through said mechanism, firms access new
information and knowledge that would not be
available if they did not export. In this vein,
Grossman and Helpman (1991, 1993) argue that in-
ternational trade facilitates a two-way exchange of
knowledge across borders. In fact, thanks to the in-
teraction with foreign agents, exporting firms are
exposed to knowledge insights that are not accessible
to firms whose operations stay within the domestic
market (Salomon and Shaver 2005).
2.1.4 Human capital
The RBV has long emphasized that the firms’ ability to
survive is largely determined by their ability to develop
specific human resources which competitors cannot im-
itate (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984). Numerous studies
found that human capital is a good predictor for survival
(Cooper et al. 1994; Mata and Portugal 2002).
Davidsson and Honig (2003) highlighted that a high

level of human capital, in the form of education, expe-
rience, and maturity of the entrepreneur, contributes to
the firm’s survival. Similarly, Geroski et al. (2010)
found that the level of education of the entrepreneurial
team affects start-ups’ survival. The knowledge that
entrepreneurs acquire during their education and train-
ing helps them to develop adaptability, flexibility, imag-
ination, and knowledge accumulation from the environ-
ment (Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano 2010). Such charac-
teristics are pivotal for start-up survival (Albort-Morant
and Oghazi 2016), especially at an early stage (Baptista
et al. 2014). According to Albort-Morant and Oghazi
(2016), a high level of human capital, represented by the
level of education of entrepreneurial team, increases the
survival chances of start-ups participating to incubator
programs. Moreover, the RBV also suggests that re-
sources in the form of human capital increase with the
age of the firm (Wennberg et al. 2010). In particular,
resources such as maturity, ability to solve problems,
experience, and contacts increase with the age of the
entrepreneur. For example, if we consider the age of the
founder as an intangible resource, start-ups with a more
experienced owner show better chances of survival. In
addition to this direct effect of human capital on surviv-
al, high stock of human capital can also be a conse-
quence of other capabilities relevant to the firm, as firms
with a high human capital find it easier to attract highly
qualified employees.
2.1.5 Interactions among internal resources do matter
Previous literature has underestimated whether syner-
gistic interactions among internal resources have an
influence on start-ups’ survival (Yang et al. 2017). As
a matter of fact, several scholars building on RBV
perspectives (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984) argue that
firms’ internal resources contribute to start-ups’ survival
especially when they can be used in combinations rather
than in isolation (Denrell et al. 2003; Newbert 2007;
Yang et al. 2017). Moreover, an analysis of synergistic
interactions among said resources can reveal whether a
specific internal resource enhances the positive influ-
ence of other internal resources on start-up survival
(Dutta et al. 1999; Newbert 2007; Yang et al. 2017).
According to Newbert (2007), in fact, resources combi-
nations seem to have a higher explanatory power of the
variances of performance across firms compared with
isolated resources. Moreover, Dutta et al. (1999) found a
strong effect of the interaction between a firm’s
N. D. Sarto et al.
marketing and R&D activities on the performance of
firms competing in high-technology industries. Finally,
Yang et al. (2017) found that the combined use of
internal resources has an amplifying effect on the
chances of survival of Chinese high-tech start-ups. A
possible explanation for the positive effect of a com-
bined use of internal resources on firm survival and
performance may reside in the nature of the intercon-
nections of firm resources. The interconnectedness of
assets, in fact, makes the process of resource accumula-
tion more unique and inimitable by competitors leading
to competitive advantage, performance, and survival
(Dierickx and Cool 1989; Hult and Ketchen 2001).
However, while few refute the crucial role of inter-
action among internal resources in increasing survival
likelihood of firms, a major question that remain open is
which interactions among which start-ups’ internal re-
sources increase their survival prospects.
3 Methodology
In order to answer our research question, the QCA has
been used. More specifically, three reasons led us to use
the QCA methodology. First, this methodology allows
us to analyze causal relationships between configura-
tions or combinations of resources (internal resources)
and an outcome of interest (i.e., survival of start-ups)
(Ragin 2008; Schneider and Wagemann 2012). Second,
QCA is receiving increasing attention from manage-
ment (Kan et al. 2016; Sperber and Linder 2018) and
innovation scholars (Kraus et al. 2018). Last, the aim of
this methodology is not to demonstrate the existence and
the magnitude of a causal relationship between two
variables as in inferential statistics, but rather to reveal
patterns that support the existence of such causal rela-
tionship (Schneider and Wagemann 2010).
In our study, we used a specific QCA technique
named fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA). The fsQCA adopts the fuzzy logic to expand
the possibilities offered by the dichotomous QCA. In
this way, it is possible to express the belonging to a set in
the range of values between 0 and 1, thus obtaining a
scale of appertaining (Ragin 2000).
3.1 Empirical context and selection of cases
For our research, we selected cases from the context of
accelerators defined as “a fixed-term, cohort-based
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
program, including mentorship and educational compo-
nents, that culminates in a public pitch event or demo-
day” (Cohen and Hochberg 2014: p. 4). We chose to
collect data from accelerators for two key reasons. First,
they are a reliable source of information for this study
because they are constantly in contact with start-uppers
(Block et al. 2018; Mian et al. 2016). Second, by
collecting data through accelerators, we were able to
examine start-ups from the same empirical context,
thereby obtaining a consistent population avoiding se-
lection bias.
More specifically, we decided to collect data from
Italian accelerators for three key reasons. To begin with,
recent studies show that the number of accelerators has
grown steadily in Europe (Clarysse and Yusubova
2014). Since Italy is the fourth largest economy in the
European Union and an economy in which innovation
plays an increasingly important role (GEM 2017), it is
quite reasonable to think of collecting data from Italian
accelerators to answer our research question. In addi-
tion, the number of Italian accelerators in the last 5 years
has increased from 12 (2013) to 27 (2017). Last but not
least, Italian accelerators are not only growing but also
have a key function for the survival of start-ups. In fact,
the Hot Topics (2015) listed eight Italian accelerators
among the world’s top 100 accelerators.
For our research, we selected Italian accelerators
active since 2013 and which have carried out accel-
eration activities according to the definition provided
by Cohen and Hochberg (2014). We chose 2013 as a
starting point for two reasons. First of all, Italian
accelerator activities effectively took off that year;
therefore, taking into account their activities before
that date would not have allowed us to objectively
assess their role. Moreover, previous studies show
that an objective evaluation of the survival of a
start-up requires at least 5 years (Mas-Verdú et al.
2015). By considering the accelerators active in 2013
as a starting point, we can reasonably evaluate the
success or failure of a start-up in 2017.
3.2 Data collection
The data collected for this study derive from a survey
sent to Italian private accelerators active since 2013 and
reported in Appendix A. We collected data from private
accelerators for two reasons. First, they encourage the
survival of start-ups (Clarysse and Yusubova 2014) by
offering various services to start-ups, such as tutoring,
office space, and networking1 (Pauwels et al. 2016).
Second, we excluded corporate accelerators as they
aim to build a bridge between firms and start-ups in
order to improve firm innovation. In fact, corporate
accelerators are considered open innovation tools
(Weiblen and Chesbrough 2015), since their primary
objective is not to support start-ups through a mentor-
led program (Cohen and Hochberg 2014), but to acquire
innovations from them. Given our research question, we
found it reasonable to collect information only from
private accelerators. In particular, we gathered informa-
tion from all the Italian accelerators that accelerated a
start-up cohort in 2013: B-Ventures, Luiss Enlabs,
Nanabianca, Seedlab, and iStarter. As shown in Table 1,
these 5 accelerators consistently provided assets in ex-
change for equity and mentoring services for a limited
period of time (an average of six months). Seedlab and
iStarter do not offer assets but offer services in exchange
for equity. These private accelerators are comparable in
terms of legal status (for profit), expertise, year of foun-
dation, investments in start-ups in the initial phase, and
organization of meetings with investors.
In September 2017, we developed an ad hoc ques-
tionnaire for this study, in which we asked several
questions about the internal resources of the start-ups
accelerated in 2013, including data on R&D activity,
advertising activity, export activity, and human capital.
Before sending the questionnaire, we contacted two
accelerator managers in order to obtain useful feedback
for our research and to validate our questionnaire. This
approach reduced interpretation issues or misunder-
standing of some of the questions in the form. Subse-
quently, we revised the questionnaire and presented it to
the 5 Italian accelerators active since 2013. In Novem-
ber 2017, we collected, through SurveyMonkey, an-
swers to our questionnaire from the CEOs of 30 start-
ups accelerated in 2013. We received 8 missing answers
by telephone in December 2017.
The outcome of this procedure allowed us to gather
information on 38 start-ups accelerated by the 5 accel-
erators. Information about these start-ups refers to 2013,
which is also the year of foundation of the start-ups since
accelerators include in their program only start-ups at
their early stage. To corroborate the accuracy of this
information, we also searched qualitative information
from the Internet, such as news, data from corporate
1
We are aware that, according to the literature, another goal of accel-
erator programs is to increase the growth of start-ups.
 N. D. Sarto et al.

Table 1 Characteristics of the selected Italian accelerators

Name First cohort Seed ($) Equity Duration Cohort Profit Industrial sectors of
accelerated (months) size oriented program focus

b-Venture 2013 25K 10% 6 5 Yes Specific (mobile)

IStarter 2013 None 5% 6 3 Yes Generic
Luiss Enlabs 2013 80K 9% 5 3 Yes Generic
Nana Bianca 2013 10–80K 10% 6 7 Yes Specific (Web start-ups)
Seedlab 2013 None 10% 4 5 Yes Specific (IT start-ups)

websites, and specialized magazines and journals. Ta- as the point of full non-membership (i.e., 0), 2 as the
ble 2 reports descriptive statistics of our sample. point of maximum ambiguity (i.e., 0.5), and 3 as the
point of full membership (i.e., 1) to the set “high export
activity.”
3.3 Calibration
Following previous studies (Albort-Morant and
Oghazi 2016; Geroski et al. 2010), we calibrated human
The QCA methodology starts with the calibration pro-
capital of the start-up by measuring the education level
cedure. Through this procedure, we operationalized data
of the team members. More specifically, we set a value
collected as scores that allow defining whether or not the
of 5 for start-ups where the maximum level of education
condition belongs to a predefined group. We carried out
was a PhD, a value of 4 if the maximum level of
the transformation of data into scores by using the direct
education of the team members was a Master’s degree,
calibration proposed by Ragin (2008). Table 3 shows
a value of 3 if in the start-up the highest qualification
such data calibration.
was a Bachelor degree, a value of 2 if the team member
Following previous studies (Esteve-Pérez and
with the highest education level was secondary educa-
Mañez-Castillejo 2008; Yang et al. 2017), we set R&D
tion, and a value of 1 if no team member had received
activity with a value of 3 if the start-up in 2013 conduct-
any formal education. To calibrate this condition, we set
ed R&D activity internally, 2 if the start-up in 2013
0 as the point of full exclusion, 0.5 as the point of
bought R&D activity from other firms, and 1 if the
maximum ambiguity, and 1 as the point of full inclusion
start-up in 2013 did not buy or conduct R&D activ-
to the set “high human capital.” As regards the outcome
ity internally. For the calibration, we set the value to
of our analysis, namely start-up survival in 2017,2 we
1 as full non-membership (i.e., 0), 2 as the point of
obtained data from the 38 start-ups accelerated by the
maximum ambiguity (i.e., 0.5), and 3 as the point of
Italian “Chamber of Commerce” and we verified the
full membership (i.e., 1) to the set “high R&D
status of “failed” or “active” by following Schwartz
activity.”
(2013). In order to ensure that the start-up’s non-
Following Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo
registration with the “Chamber of Commerce” was not
(2008), we set the value to 0 for start-ups that did not
due to an acquisition, we verified the truthfulness of this
spend resources on advertising activity in 2013, and 1
information through “Lexis Nexis” and “Google.”
for start-ups that instead allocated resources for this
activity. In this case, the value of 1 indicates a full
membership in the “advertising activity” group while 0 3.4 fsQCA
indicates a full exclusion.
We measured exporting activity carried out by start- The fsQCA involves several steps (Ragin 2006); the
ups in 2013 by following Esteve-Pérez and Mañez- first step consists in constructing a truth table, a matrix
Castillejo (2008) and thus setting a value of 3 if the with rows of 2k where k is the number of random
start-up exported more than 25% of its sales, 2 if the conditions used in the analysis. Table 4 shows the truth
start-up exported less than 25% and more than 0%, and 2
Following previous studies (Mas-Verdù et al. 2015; Geroski et al.
1 if the start-up did not export its products or services. 2010), we used only data from 2013 and we analyzed survival after
We calibrated this condition by setting the lowest value 5 years
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the sample

Start-up Number Percentage Legal Form Number of Percentage
location of start-ups start-ups
Emilia Romagna 6 15.8% S.r.l. 38 100.0%
Friuli 1 2.6% Total 38 100.0%
Lazio 5 13.2% Industry Affiliation Number of Percentage
start-ups
Lombardy 5 13.2% Autonomous start-up 36 94.7%
Marche 1 2.6% Spinoff 2 5.3%
Piedmont 1 2.6% Total 38 100.0%
Puglia 1 2.6% Employees in 2013 Number of Percentage
start-ups
Sicily 2 5.3% Two 10 26.3%
Tuscany 14 36.8% Three 15 39.5%
Veneto 2 5.3% Four 13 34.2%
Total 38 100.0% Total 38 100.0%
Survival Number Percentage Advertising Activity Number Percentage
of start-ups of start-ups
Yes 27 71% Yes 25 66%
No 11 29% No 13 34%
Total 38 100% Total 38 100%
Export Activity Number Percentage R&D Activity Number Percentage
of start-ups of start-ups
Not export 17 44% Internal 14 37%
Less than 25% 3 7% External 11 29%
More than 25% 18 49 Absent 13 34%
Total 38 100% Total 38 100%

Maximum level of education Number of start-ups Percentage

. Ph.D 12 31%
Master’s degree 11 29%
Bachelor degree 13 34%
Secondary education 2 6%
No formal education 0 0%
Total 38 100%

table emerged in this study. Each row of the table is
associated with a combination of attributes. Truth table
reports all logical possible combinations of conditions
and the outcome associated with each configuration.
Each truth table row represents one of the logically
possible combinations of conditions, including cases
for which there is no empirical evidence (Schneider
and Wagemann 2012).
The second step reduces the number of rows in the
truth table considering two conditions, a frequency
threshold and a consistency threshold. Following Ragin
(2008), we applied a frequency threshold of 1 and a
coherence threshold of 0.8, respectively. The third step
uses an algorithm based on Boolean algebra to simplify
the truth table. In our study, we used the Quine-
McCluskey algorithm (used in the fsQCA 3.0 software
package) to logically minimize the declarations of suf-
ficiency, to simplify the complexity, and to obtain a
more parsimonious response (Schneider and
Wagemann 2012).
4 Results
4.1 Analysis of the necessary conditions
This type of analysis allows us to determine whether
some of the analyzed causal conditions can be consid-
ered as necessary conditions for a certain outcome to
occur. In other words, the analysis tests whether the

Table 3 Calibration
Outcome/ Description
conditions
Outcome: Dichotomous variable indicating firm survival for the Survived ➔1
Survival period 2013–2017 Did not survive ➔0
Conditions
R&D Categorical variable that specifies if firm makes, buys Makes ➔1
activity or neither buys nor makes R&D in 2013
Advertising Dichotomous variable indicating if the advertising
activity expenditure is positive or null in 2013
Export Categorical variable that shows export intensity of a
activity start-up in 2013, as percentage of total sales
Human Categorical variable indicating the level of education
capital of entrepreneurial team in 2013
presence of a condition is necessary to guarantee the
output, i.e., the survival of the start-ups. A condition is
necessary for the result if all cases exhibiting the condi-
tion also exhibit the result and there are no cases that
exhibit the result and do not exhibit the condition
(Schneider and Wagemann 2012). In line with this rea-
soning, we consider the one with a consistency greater
than 0.9 as a necessary condition (Schneider and
Wagemann 2010). The consistency measures how much
empirical evidence supports the existence of a relation-
ship between the configuration and the outcome (Ragin
2006). Table 5 shows the analysis of the necessary
conditions considering both the presence of a condition
and its absence. Since the consistency for each condition
is below the threshold of 0.9, we can state that our
analysis shows that none of the conditions alone is
necessary to determine the output “survival.”
4.2 Analysis of sufficient conditions
The fsQCA methodology then provides the analysis of
sufficient conditions. As highlighted by Schneider and
Wagemann (2012), a condition is sufficient for the result
if all cases exhibiting the condition also exhibit the
result, but there are also cases that exhibit the result
but not the condition. In this way, the analysis of suffi-
cient conditions identifies all the conditions that are
sufficient for the result to occur. For our study, we
consider a frequency threshold of 1.0 and a consistency
N. D. Sarto et al.
Calibration Previous literature
Schwartz (2013)
Esteve-Pérez and
Buys ➔0.5 Mañez-Castillejo (2008)
Neither makes nor buys➔0 Yang et al. (2017)
Positive advertising expenditure➔ 1 Esteve-Pérez and
Null advertising expenditure ➔ 0 Mañez-Castillejo (2008)
Export intensity is higher than 25%➔ 1 Esteve-Pérez and
Export intensity is greater than 0% and Mañez-Castillejo (2008)
lower than or equal to 25% ➔ 0.5
Does not export ➔ 0
PhD➔ 1 Albort-Morant and Oghazi (2016)
Master’s degree➔ 0.75 Geroski et al. (2010)
Bachelor’s degree➔0.5
Basic education➔0.25
No formal education➔0
threshold of 0.80, both consistent with Kraus et al.
(2018). The model used for our analysis contains four
conditions:
Survival ¼ f
ðR&D activity; advertising activity; export activity; human capitalÞ
The fsQCA method allows for the analysis of com-
binations—i.e., configurations—of the conditions that
lead to the occurrence of the result of interest, i.e., the
survival of the start-ups. Table 6 shows the results of our
analysis. In particular, it shows how the use of the
parsimonious solution allows to identify a configuration
sufficient for the survival of the start-ups: the combina-
tion of the export activity and human capital conditions.
The parsimonious solution is indicated as the most
suitable since it considers only the conditions defined
as the “core” of the solution (Schneider and Wagemann
2010). Furthermore, the parsimonious solution reduces
the causal conditions to the smallest possible number.
The conditions that were included are therefore “implicit
raws,” since they cannot be left out of any solution for
the truth table. The parsimonious solution is therefore a
subset of the other possible solutions, namely the com-
plex solution and the intermediate solution (Schneider
and Wagemann 2012).
As reported in Table 6, according to the parsimo-
nious solution, the combination of the export activ-
ity with a high level of human capital leads to the
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis

Table 4 Truth table

Conditions

Rows R&D Advertising Export Human Number Survival

activity activity activity capital of cases

1 1 1 1 1 6 1
2 1 0 1 1 2 1
3 1 0 0 1 1 0
4 1 1 0 1 1 0
5 0 1 1 0 1 0
6 0 1 1 1 1 1
7 0 0 0 0 3 0
8 0 0 0 1 1 0

Rows are labeled as follows: 1, membership in the set, 0 non-membership in the set, 8 rows are not displayed in the truth table as they contain
no empirical evidence

outcome survival to occur. This means that the com-
bination of these two conditions is related to start-up
survival. In other words, start-ups that export and
have a high human capital tend to survive more than
others. The “solution consistency” and the “solution
coverage” comply with the criteria provided by
Ragin (2008). Appendix B reports the intermediate
solution. Albeit “intermediate solution strikes a bal-
ance between complexity and parsimony, using pro-
cedures that mimic the practice of conventional
case-oriented comparative research” (Ragin and
Sonnett 2005: p. 21), for the purpose of our re-
search, we use the parsimonious solution as it allows
us to narrow the focus of the analysis at the interac-
tion between two resources. Moreover, as highlight-
ed in the intermediate solution, the interaction be-
tween export activity and human capital is present in
both the configurations suggesting that these two
Table 5 Analysis of the necessary conditions
Outcome: survival
Consistency
R&D activity 0.63
~ R&D activity 0.36
Advertising activity 0.70
~ Advertising activity 0.29
Export activity 0.67
~ Export activity 0.33
Human capital 0.75
~ Human capital 0.25
conditions can be considered as “core conditions”
(Fiss 2011; Fiss et al. 2013). Finally, only the par-
simonious solution eliminates redundant factors and
is causally interpretable (Baumgartner 2015;
Baumgartner and Thiem 2017a, 2017b).
5 Discussion
From the results obtained, we can state that the answer
to our research question “Which interactions among
which firms’ internal resources affect start-up survival?”
is the combined interaction between export activity and
human capital. On one hand, the interaction between
these two resources amplifies the effect of the learning
by exporting on start-up survival. In fact, highly quali-
fied workers are able to process new knowledge
accessed by the start-up through the export activity
(Kotha et al. 2013). On the other hand, export activity
provides the knowledge necessary to exploit the poten-
tial of qualified human capital.
Coverage In the following two subsections, we analyze our
current understanding of this conclusion by constructing
0.87 some theoretical arguments that allow us to contribute to
0.53 two strands of literature. On the one hand, we contribute
0.76 to the one concerning the effect known as “learning by
0.62 exporting” (Eliasson et al. 2012; Grossman and
0.93 Helpman 1991; Salomon and Shaver 2005), of the ex-
0.49 port activity on start-up survival. On the other is the one
0.83 that studies the effect of the start-up’s human capital on
0.50 its survival (Geroski et al. 2010; Pennings et al. 1998;
Yang et al. 2017).

Table 6 Parsimonious solution
Raw coverage
Export activity *Human capital 0.55
Solution coverage: 0.55
Solution consistency: 0.96
5.1 Export activity, human capital, and start-up survival
The literature on international trade shows that export
activity has a positive impact on start-up survival
(Cavusgil and Knight 2015). This is because firms that
export are more productive than those that do not export
(Bernard et al. 2003). These productivity differences are
due to the learning by exporting mechanism (Grossman
and Helpman 1991, 1993). According to this mecha-
nism, firms that export have interactions with foreign
agents and this exposes them to inputs of knowledge
and information that they could not otherwise have if
their operations were restricted to the domestic market
(Salomon and Shaver 2005). The knowledge and infor-
mation to which start-ups are exposed through export
activity is incorporated into their production function,
thereby making them more efficient. Therefore, export
activity is an intangible resource that is difficult to
imitate by the competitors and brings a competitive
advantage that allows the start-ups to survive on the
market.
Our study enriches the understanding of learning
by exporting mechanism and thus contributes to the
literature on international trade by showing that a
high level of human capital plays a contingent role
on the impact that the export activity has on start-up
survival. Thanks to our results, we contribute to the
literature on international trade in three ways. First,
we observe that the literature suggests that the learn-
ing by exporting mechanism has a positive impact
on start-up survival. Specifically, Esteve-Pérez and
Mañez-Castillejo (2008) test the lower probability of
failure of start-ups that export. This hypothesis was
confirmed for firms that exported more than 25% of
their sales. We calibrated the export activity accord-
ing to their result. We contribute to this literature
because the results emerging from our analysis sug-
gest not only that start-ups that export experience
less failure, but also that start-ups that export sur-
vive more, if they combine their export activity with
a high level of human capital. Since the results of
N. D. Sarto et al.
Unique coverage Consistency
0.55 0.96
our article suggest that the combined effect of the
experience resulting from export activity and a high
level of human capital of the firm is related to start-
up survival, we contribute to the literature on inter-
national trade (Bernard et al. 2003; Grossman and
Helpman 1991, 1993).
Second, we note that the literature on interna-
tional trade suggests that the learning by exporting
mechanism does not present sterile temporal con-
notations; on the contrary, it increases with time
(Greenaway and Kneller 2007). In particular,
Esteve-Pérez et al. (2008) examined the relation-
ship between the export activity and start-up sur-
vival and introduce the temporal aspect of learning
by exporting, stating that the efficiency of learning
by exporting increases over time. The model pro-
posed by the authors was applied on a 12-year
panel of small manufacturing medium-sized Span-
ish firms. The temporal effect of learning by
exporting is therefore evident if we consider this
time window. Conversely, in our article, we find
that learning by exporting has an effect on survival
after just 5 years, if combined with a high level of
human capital. In other words, the results of our
article suggest that the presence of a high human
capital shortens the effect of learning by exporting
on start-up survival.
Last, the literature on international trade suggests
that the effect of learning by exporting on start-up
survival can be powered by the possession of certain
knowledge related to the sector in which the firms
operate. For example, Westhead et al. (2001) show
that the “entrepreneurs’ human capital resources”
are linked to the export activity and the consequent
effect on start-up survival. The authors pointed out
that it is the “industry knowledge” resource that
mediates the relationship between export activity
and survival. Instead, we find that it is a high level
of human capital represented by the level of educa-
tion of start-ups’ members that mediates this rela-
tionship (Davidsson and Honig 2003).
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
5.2 Human capital, export activity, and start-up survival
The literature on human capital shows that human cap-
ital has a positive influence on start-up survival (Geroski
et al. 2010; Pennings and Van Witteloostuijn 1998;
Yang et al. 2017). In fact, firms hiring highly skilled
workers are more likely to survive because they have
tacit knowledge that is difficult to imitate by competitors
(Youndt et al. 1996). The literature also suggests that
this greater ability to survive is linked to the initial
stocks of knowledge that reside in these firms. In other
words, the impact that human capital has on start-up
survival is strongly related to the resources that firms
initially absorb by hiring highly skilled workers. In fact,
some studies show that human capital has a marginal
impact on start-up survival over time (Geroski et al.
2010).
Our study enriches the understanding of this phe-
nomenon and thus contributes to the literature on human
capital by showing that a high level of export activity
plays a contingent role on the impact that human capital
has on start-up survival. In particular, our results allow
us to contribute to the literature concerning the impor-
tance of human capital for start-up survival in three
ways. First, we observe that some studies suggest a
contingent effect between human capital and R&D,
defined as “co-specialized resources” (Newbert 2007).
Specifically, Yang et al. (2017) argue that firms with
high human capital can survive if they invest in R&D.
The authors found empirical validation of this hypothe-
sis on a sample of Chinese start-ups. In addition, these
authors tried to integrate this result by speculating a
further contingent effect, this time linked to the available
financial resources. However, they did not find support
for this hypothesis. In our article, instead, we found
different results. In particular, the results of our article
indicate that the interaction between human capital and
R&D does not have an impact on start-up survival. In
addition, the results of our article suggest a combinatory
effect of a different nature: human capital affects start-up
survival only if combined with exporting activity. In
other words, in order to survive, firms with high human
capital do not have to invest in R&D but in exporting
activities. Although this divergence of results may be
due to the different empirical context (Chinese start-ups
invest more in R&D than Italian start-ups), we believe
that the scope of our contribution can still find validity in
empirical contexts similar to those observed in this
article.
Second, we note that current studies on human cap-
ital have shown that it affects start-up survival only at
the beginning of their life cycle (Burton and Beckman
2007). For example, Geroski et al. (2010) found that a
high level of human capital has a marginal impact on
survival over time. In our article, instead, we find com-
plementary evidence to this result: high human capital
has an impact over time if combined with the export
activity. More precisely, we observe that in the initial
period of survival, firms are able to survive through a
large initial stock of knowledge that derives from a high
human capital. Over time, however, firms can power the
impact that human capital has on their ability to survive
through learning by exporting.
Last, Pennings et al. (1998) were among the first
scholars to find evidence of a positive impact of human
capital on firm survival. The authors justified this result
by arguing that human capital is an intangible asset that
is inimitable by other firms and therefore represents
competitive advantage. However, the authors find em-
pirical evidence of this relationship on a very specific
type of firms operating in a particular sector (profession-
al services firms in the accounting sector). Our article
confirms that this result is also relevant for start-ups,
provided that human capital is combined with a high
level of export activity.
6 Conclusions: contributions, limitations, and future
research
The study aimed to investigate which interactions
among which firms’ internal resources influence start-
up survival. Studying different interactions of internal
resources is an important research question as numerous
authors found that such resources are more valuable
when considered in combination rather than in isolation
(Newbert 2007; Yang et al. 2017). To address our re-
search question, we examined the literature that uses the
RBV to explain start-up survival in terms of heteroge-
neity of tangible and intangible internal resources of the
firms (Barney 1991; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo
2008; Newbert 2007). After identifying the five re-
sources affecting start-up survival (R&D activity, adver-
tising activity, export activity, human capital, and finan-
cial resources), we used the fsQCA to examine the
interactions between four of them (R&D, advertising,
export activity, and human capital) and their consequent
impact on start-up survival.

The results of the fuzzy set analysis suggest that,
among the various combinations of internal factors con-
sidered, the interaction between export activity and hu-
man capital is the only one that affects start-up survival.
None of the other variables or combinations of them is
capable of influencing the survival of start-ups. In other
words, only the combined effect of the experience
resulting from the export activity and a high level of
human capital of the firm is related to start-up survival.
The impact of such interaction on start-up survival has
never been highlighted before despite numerous
scholars agree that firms’ internal resources contribute
to start-ups’ survival especially when they are used in
combination rather than in isolation (Denrell et al. 2003;
Newbert 2007; Yang et al. 2017).
Drawing on these findings, our article offers three the-
oretical contributions. First, we contributed to the RBV
(Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984) by highlighting the im-
portance of the combined use of internal resources for start-
up survival (Newbert 2007). Our results suggest that the
synergistic combinations between the four key resources
influencing start-up survival—i.e., (1) R&D activity, (2)
advertising activity, (3) export activity, and (4) human
capital—allow start-ups to develop unique and inimitable
capabilities which strengthen their competitive advantage
(Belso-Martinez et al. 2013; Hult and Ketchen 2001; Yang
et al. 2017). More precisely, one synergistic interaction
turns out particularly important for start-up survival: the
combined use of the experience resulting from export
activity and a high level of human capital. The combined
use of the two internal resources allows start-ups to devel-
op inimitable and intangible capabilities and to achieve a
competitive advantage that leads their survival.
Second, we also contributed to the literature on inter-
national trade (Eliasson et al. 2012; Esteve-Pérez and
Mañez-Castillejo 2008). Previous research suggested
that export activity leads start-ups to experience less
failure (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008). Our
study not only confirms this intuition but also adds a
new insight: start-ups that export survive more in the
presence of a high level of human capital. In addition,
the presence of a high level of human capital temporally
accelerates the effect of the learning by exporting mech-
anism on firm survival, thereby contributing to previous
research that claimed longer periods of time (Esteve-
Pérez et al. 2008; Greenaway and Kneller 2007).
Third, we contributed to the literature on human
capital (Baptista et al. 2014; Semrau and Hopp 2016)
by showing that the presence of export activity amplifies
N. D. Sarto et al.
the impact of human capital on start-up survival. Con-
trarily, previous research found that R&D activities
powered this impact (Yang et al. 2017). Moreover, we
found that a high level of export activity stretches out the
said impact over time, thereby enlarging its temporal
connotations. Conversely, prior research limited it at the
beginning of start-ups’ life cycle (Burton and Beckman
2007; Geroski et al. 2010). Furthermore,
complementing the results of Pennings et al. (1998)
who highlighted the importance of human capital for
survival of firms operating in the accounting sector, we
pointed out that a high human capital combined with
export activity impacts also on start-ups’ survival.
Finally, we offered a methodological contribution.
Looking at the results above, we can argue that the fuzzy
set analysis is useful to detect the interactions between
start-ups’ internal factors. Consistently with previous
studies (Kan et al. 2016), we confirm the suitability of
fsQCA for management research and particularly for
research dealing with start-ups. More specifically, this
methodology results particularly suitable for investigat-
ing the interaction between factors and their relationship
with an outcome of interest (Sperber and Linder 2018).
6.1 Limitations and future research
Although this article contributes to improving the un-
derstanding of internal resources affecting start-up sur-
vival, several limitations must be taken into account.
First, the internal factors on which we base our
study were not identified tout court through the
RBV, but through the literature that used this theo-
retical lens to explain survival (Esteve-Pérez and
Mañez-Castillejo 2008). Furthermore, we are aware
of the fact that the four internal resources (R&D
activity, advertising activity, export activity, and hu-
man capital) do not stand for the full range of
tangible and intangible resources that start-ups may
possess. There are additional resources, such as fi-
nancial resources, that could shape start-up survival.
In this article, we exclude financial resources from
our analysis of interactions among internal resources
for start-up survival as previous studies show that
this type of resources has no impact on the survival
of start-ups when combined with other internal re-
sources (Yang et al. 2017). Similarly, we did not
take technological resources into account because,
to the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of
articles that used the RBV to study how these
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis

resources affect survival. However, we believe that & The start-up exclusively carries out research and
the importance of these resources for innovative development internally
start-ups is crucial for their competitiveness. Conse- & The start-up uses research and development made
quently, we invite scholars to expand our study by by other firms
considering also technological resources. & The start-up does not carry out and does not make
In addition, we focussed on the firms’ resources, use of research and development
which are particular type of internal factors. Future
analyses could be repeated on additional internal factors Advertising activity
such as personal characteristics of the entrepreneurial The start-up has incurred expenses for advertising
team (Cooper et al. 1994; Sarasvathy et al. 2013; Van activities in 2013?
Praag 2003). For the same reason, it might be interesting
to repeat the same analysis on external factors such as & Yes
environmental forces (Tavassoli and Carbonara 2014). & No
Moreover, the results we obtained from this study are
limited to the parsimonious solution, which is more ro- Export activity
bust than alternative solutions, such as intermediate and Export activity carried out by the start-up in 2013 (as
complex solutions (Schneider and Wagemann 2010). We a percentage of total sales activity)
are aware that by adopting less robust solutions, further
configurations of internal factors may emerge. & The start-up does not export
Furthermore, this article focusses on start-ups. Future & Less than 25%
studies could explore our research inquiry in other types & Greater than 25%
of firms, such as older firms, small firms, or large firms.
Last but not least, we are aware we applied fsQCA to Human capital
study the configurations that emerge from the combina- Indicate the distribution of team members by highest
tory effects between firms’ internal factors in a very qualification, in 2013.
specific context: Italian start-ups accelerated in 2013. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Future studies could investigate these configurations in
different contexts, such as Chinese start-ups, where Number of PhD
other combinatory effects could emerge. Number of masters graduates
Number of bachelor graduates
Number of high school
Appendix A Questions used in the questionnaire graduates
Number of people with no
submitted to accelerators in September 2017
formal education

Welcome to the online questionnaire “Accelerators,

Firm Survival and Resource Based View”.
With this survey we aim to investigate the resources
determining the survival of start-ups accelerated in Italy Appendix B Intermediate solution
in 2013.
For this purpose, we have scrutinized the literature that
uses the Resource Based View (a theory that sees the
Raw Unique Consistency
firm’s resources as determining factors to obtain a com- coverage coverage
petitive advantage) to explain start-up’s survival. As a net
result, we have identified four internal resources that form HumanCapital*Advertising 0.42 0.08 0.97
the object of this survey: 1) R&D activity; 2) advertising *ExportActivities
HumanCapital*Export 0.45 0.11 0.96
activity; 3) export activity; and 4) human capital. Activities*R&DActivities
Research and Development activity Solution coverage: 0.53
Research and development activity carried out by the Solution consistency: 0.96
start-up in 2013

References
Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). Does entry size matter?
The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival.
The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(1), 21–43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00136.
Albornoz, F., Fanelli, S., & Hallak, J. C. (2016). Survival in export
markets. Journal of International Economics, 102, 262–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.05.003.
Albort-Morant, G., & Oghazi, P. (2016). How useful are incuba-
tors for new entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Research,
69(6), 2125–2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2015.12.019.
Ashmos, D. P., & Huber, G. P. (1987). The systems paradigm in
organization theory: Correcting the record and suggesting the
future. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 607–621.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306710.
Audretsch, D. B. (1991). New-firm survival and the technological
regime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 37, 441–
450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109568.
Audretsch, D. B., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2014). Why don’t all
young firms invest in R&D? Small Business Economics,
43(4), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9561-9.
Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Haefliger, S. (2015). Business model
configurations and performance: A qualitative comparative
analysis in Formula One racing, 2005–2013. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 24(3), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1093
/icc/dtv012.
Baptista, R., Karaöz, M., & Mendonça, J. (2014). The impact of
human capital on the early success of necessity versus
opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Small Business
Economics, 42(4), 831–847. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11187-013-9502-z.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive ad-
vantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
Baumgartner, M. (2015). Parsimony and causality. Quality &
Quantity, 49(2), 839–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-
014-0026-7.
Baumgartner, M., & Thiem, A. (2017a). Model ambiguities in
configurational comparative research. Sociological Methods
& Research, 46(4), 954–987. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0049124115610351.
Baumgartner, M. & Thiem, A. (2017b). Often trusted but never
(properly) tested: Evaluating qualitative comparative analy-
sis. Sociological Methods & Research 1–33. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0049124117701487.
Belso-Martinez, J. A., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Mas-Verdu, F.
(2013). Combining effects of internal resources, entrepreneur
characteristics and KIS on new firms. Journal of Business
Research, 66(10), 2079–2089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.02.034.
Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., & Kortum, S. (2003).
Plants and productivity in international trade. American
Economic Review, 93(4), 1268–1290. https://doi.
org/10.1257/000282803769206296.
Block, J. H., Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S.
(2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they
are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 239–250.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9826-6.
N. D. Sarto et al.
Boyer, T., & Blazy, R. (2014). Born to be alive? The survival of
innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups. Small
Business Economics, 42(4), 669–683. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-013-9522-8.
Bridges, S., & Guariglia, A. (2008). Financial constraints, global
engagement, and firm survival in the United Kingdom:
Evidence from micro data. Scottish Journal of Political
Economy, 55(4), 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9485.2008.00461.x.
Burton, M. D., & Beckman, C. M. (2007). Leaving a legacy:
Position imprints and successor turnover in young firms.
American Sociological Review, 72(2), 239–266. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000312240707200206.
Cabrer-Borrás, B., & Belda, P. R. (2018). Survival of entrepre-
neurship in Spain. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 265–
278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9923-1.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An
entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and
rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business
Studies, 46(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.62.
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death:
Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 14(6), 1167–1192. https://doi.org/10.1093
/icc/dth081.
Clarysse, B., & Yusubova, A. (2014). Success factors of business
accelerators. In Technology Business Incubation
Mechanisms and Sustainable Regional Development,
Proceedings.
Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y. V. (2014). Accelerating start-ups: The
seed accelerator phenomenon. Available at SSRN. https://doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.2418000.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307
/2393553.
Coleman, S., Cotei, C., & Farhat, J. (2013). A resource-based view
of new firm survival: New perspectives on the role of indus-
try and exit route. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 1350002. https://doi.org/10.1142
/S1084946713500027.
Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Vivarelli, M. (2016). To be born is not
enough: The key role of innovative start-ups. Small Business
Economics, 47(2), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
016-9716-y.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2001). Technology-based
entrepreneurs: Does internet make a difference? Small
Business Economics, 16(3), 177–190. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1011127205758.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial
human and financial capital as predictors of new venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90013-2.
Cowling, M., Liu, W., Ledger, A., & Zhang, N. (2015). What
really happens to small and medium-sized enterprises in a
global economic recession? UK evidence on sales and job
dynamics. International Small Business Journal, 33(5), 488–
513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613512513.
Criscuolo, P., Nicolaou, N., & Salter, A. (2012). The elixir (or
burden) of youth? Exploring differences in innovation be-
tween start-ups and established firms. Research Policy, 41(2),
319–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.001.
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
Czarnitzki, D., & Toole, A. A. (2013). The R&D investment–
uncertainty relationship: Do strategic rivalry and firm size
matter? Managerial and Decision Economics, 34(1), 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2570.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human
capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(02)00097-6.
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of
strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal,
24(10), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.341.
Devece, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2016).
Entrepreneurship during economic crisis: Success factors
and paths to failure. Journal of Business Research, 69(11),
5366–5370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.139.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and
sustainability of competitive advantage. Management
Science, 35(12), 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1287
/mnsc.35.12.1504.
Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in
hightechnology markets: Is marketing capability critical?
Marketing Science, 18(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1287
/mksc.18.4.547.
Ebert, T., Brenner, T., & Brixy, U. (2019). New firm survival: The
interdependence between regional externalities and innova-
tiveness. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 287–309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0026-4.
Eklund, J., Levratto, N., & Ramello, G. B. (2018).
Entrepreneurship and failure: Two sides of the same coin?
Small Business Economics, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11187-018-0039-z.
Eliasson, K., Hansson, P., & Lindvert, M. (2012). Do firms learn
by exporting or learn to export? Evidence from small and
medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 39(2),
453–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9314-3.
Esteve-Pérez, S., & Mañez-Castillejo, J. A. (2008). The resource-
based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Business
Economics, 30(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
006-9011-4.
Esteve-Pérez, S., Llopis, A. S., & Llopis, J. A. S. (2004). The
determinants of survival of Spanish manufacturing firms.
Review of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 251–273.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-004-1972-3.
Esteve-Pérez, S., Mañez-Castillejo, J. A., & Sanchis-Llopis, J. A.
(2008). Does a “survival-by-exporting” effect for SMEs ex-
ist? Empirica, 35(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10663-007-9052-1.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set
approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120.
Fiss, P. C., Sharapov, D., & Cronqvist, L. (2013). Opposites
attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N
QCA and econometric analysis. Political Research
Quarterly, 66(1), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1509
/jmkg.2006.70.1.3.
Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter the most to firm
success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory.
Technovation, 25(9), 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2004.02.008.
Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the perfor-
mance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business
Economics, 39(2), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
010-9309-0.
Gartner, W. B., Frid, C. J., & Alexander, J. C. (2012). Financing
the emerging firm. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 745–
761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9359-y.
GEM (2017), Global report 2016/2017 http://gemconsortium.
org/report/49812/ Accessed 1 May 2017.
Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry?
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4),
421–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(95)00498-X.
Geroski, P. A., Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding condi-
tions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management
Journal, 31(5), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.823.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Industry differences in the
effect of export market entry: Learning by exporting? Review
of World Economics, 143(3), 416–432. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10290-007-0115-y.
Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equiva-
lence in organization design. Academy of Management
Review, 22(2), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.5465
/amr.1997.9707154064.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge
spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2–
3), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(91)90153-
A.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1993). Innovation and growth
in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look
before you leap: Market opportunity identification in emerg-
ing technology firms. Management Science, 54(9), 1652–
1665. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0877.
Hall, B. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm
growth in the US manufacturing sector. Journal of
Industrial Economics, 35, 583–606.
Highfield, R., & Smiley, R. (1987). New business starts and
economic activity: An empirical investigation. International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 51–66. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0167-7187(87)90006-3.
Hot Topics (2015). https://www.hottopics.ht/17202/100-leaders-
of-top-tech-accelerators/ Accessed 1 May 2017.
Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation
matter? A test of the relationship between positional advan-
tage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9),
899–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.197.
Jindal, N., & McAlister, L. (2015). The impacts of advertising
assets and R&D assets on reducing bankruptcy risk.
Marketing Science, 34(4), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1287
/mksc.2015.0913.
Kan, A. K. S., Adegbite, E., El Omari, S., & Abdellatif, M. (2016).
On the use of qualitative comparative analysis in manage-
ment. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1458–1463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.125.
Klette, T. J. (1996). R&D, scope economies, and plant perfor-
mance. The Rand Journal of Economics, 27, 502–522.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2555841.
Kotha, R., George, G., & Srikanth, K. (2013). Bridging the mutual
knowledge gap: Coordination and the commercialization of
university science. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2),
498–524. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0948.

Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship
and innovation research–the rise of a method. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 15–33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0461-8.
Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepre-
neurship: A regional analysis of new firm formation.
Regional Studies, 38(8), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0034340042000280910.
Lin, P. C., & Huang, D. S. (2008). Technological regimes and firm
survival: Evidence across sectors and over time. Small
Business Economics, 30(2), 175–186. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-006-9026-x.
Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015).
Firm survival: The role of incubators and business character-
istics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–796.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.030.
Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2002). The survival of new domestic and
foreign-owned firms. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4),
323–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.217.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business
incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge.
Technovation, 50, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2016.02.005.
Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. (2007). The survival of international
new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,
38(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
jibs.8400264.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based
view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future
research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.573.
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016).
Understanding a new generation incubation model: The ac-
celerator. Technovation, 50, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2015.09.003.
Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998). Human
capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of
Management Journal, 41(4), 425–440. https://doi.
org/10.2307/257082.
Picken, J. C. (2017). From startup to scalable enterprise: Laying
the foundation. Business Horizons, 60(5), 587–595.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.002.
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qual-
itative and quantitative methods. Berkeley: University of
California.
Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2006). How to lure analytic social science out of the
doldrums: Some lessons from comparative research.
International Sociology, 21(5), 633–646. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0268580906067834.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and
beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.
org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001.
Ragin, C. C., & Sonnett, J. (2005). Between complexity and
parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and com-
parative analysis. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft
(pp. 180-197). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80441-9_9.
N. D. Sarto et al.
Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2010). Employee-
organization relationship in collective entrepreneurship: An
overview. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
23(4), 349–359 https://doi.org/10.1108
/09534811011055368.
Roberts, K. (2003). What strategic investments should you make
during a recession to gain competitive advantage in the
recovery? Strategy & Leadership, 31(4), 31–39. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10878570310483960.
Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting:
New insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2005.00047.x.
Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R., & Kuechle, G. (2013). Failing
firms and successful entrepreneurs: Serial entrepreneurship
as a temporal portfolio. Small Business Economics, 40(2),
417–434 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9412-x.
Schäfer, D., & Talavera, O. (2009). Small business survival and
inheritance: Evidence from Germany. Small Business
Economics, 32(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
007-9069-7.
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good
practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and
fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793.
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods
for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative
analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244.
Schwartz, M. (2013). A control group study of incubators’ impact
to promote firm survival. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 38(3), 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-
012-9254-y.
Semrau, T., & Hopp, C. (2016). Complementary or compensato-
ry? A contingency perspective on how entrepreneurs’ human
and social capital interact in shaping start-up progress. Small
Business Economics, 46(3), 407–423.
Sharma, A., & Kesner, I. F. (1996). Diversifying entry: Some ex
ante explanations for postentry survival and growth.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 635–677.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256658.
Smilor, R. W. (1997). Entrepreneurship: Reflections on a subver-
sive activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 341–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00008-6.
Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2018). Gender-specifics in start-up
strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Small Business Economics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11187-018-9999-2.
Strotmann, H. (2007). Entrepreneurial survival. Small Business
Economics, 28(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
005-8859-z.
Sui, S., & Baum, M. (2014). Internationalization strategy, firm
resources and the survival of SMEs in the export market.
Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7), 821–841.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.11.
Tavassoli, S., & Carbonara, N. (2014). The role of knowledge
variety and intensity for regional innovation. Small Business
Economics, 43(2), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
014-9547-7.
Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure:
Bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view.
Born global and well educated: start-up survival through fuzzy set analysis
Organization Science, 14(5), 497–509. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.497.16761.
Ugur, M., Trushin, E., Solomon, E., & Guidi, F. (2016). R&D and
productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical
meta-regression analysis. Research Policy, 45(10), 2069–
2086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.08.001.
Van Praag, C. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young
small business owners. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 1–
17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024453200297.
Vis, B. (2012). The comparative advantages of fsQCA and regres-
sion analysis for moderately large-N analyses. Sociological
Methods & Research, 41(1), 168–198. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0049124112442142.
Wagner, J. (2012). International trade and firm performance: a
survey of empirical studies since 2006. Review of World
Economics, 148(2), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10290-011-0116-8.
Wagner, S., & Cockburn, I. (2010). Patents and the survival of
Internet-related IPOs. Research Policy, 39(2), 214–228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.003.
Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups
to enhance corporate innovation. California Management
R e v i e w, 5 7 ( 2 ) , 6 6 – 9 0 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 5 2 5
/cmr.2015.57.2.66.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S.
(2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent
exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing,
25(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2009.01.001.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002
/smj.4250050207.
Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The interna-
tionalization of new and small firms: A resource-based view.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333–358. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00063-4.
Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression
analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm
shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis
and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4),
463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021.
Yang, C., Bossink, B., & Peverelli, P. (2017). High-tech start-up
firm survival originating from a combined use of internal
resources. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 799–824.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9858-6.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996).
Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and
firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
836–866. https://doi.org/10.2307/256714.
Zhang, D., Zheng, W., & Ning, L. (2018). Does innovation facil-
itate firm survival? Evidence from Chinese high-tech firms.
Economic Modelling, 75, 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econmod.2018.07.030.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic
management to acquire resources. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105. https://doi.org/10.2189
/asqu.52.1.70.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.