TY - JOUR AB - Purpose The purpose of this paper is to respond to Hennart’s (2014) challenge to the existing born global literature. In his challenge, Hennart proposes a simpler explanation of why some firms internationalize earlier and more aggressively than others. However, such a parsimonious model of born global firms raises the awkward question of whether born global firms are indeed any different from firms that internationalize more gradually.Design/methodology/approach Using two extensive surveys of Australian exporters, this paper first explores the degree to which a set of six “facilitating factors” that Hennart puts forward are different across born global and non-born global firms. Next, it tests the second aspect of the debate highlighted above – i.e. whether born global firms behave differently from non-born global firms. This is done by testing for differences in the patterns of early market selection for born global and non-born global firms.Findings Support is found for both the role of facilitating factors and for the view that born global firms behave differently from non-born global firms. As a result, it is proposed that the Hennart and the RBV-oriented explanations of born global firms need to be viewed as complementary, rather than competing. Each may represent a necessary but not sufficient condition with respect to born global firms.Originality/value A systematic testing for differences in facilitating factors and market selection patterns across born global and non-born global firms are both issues that have major implications for the born global literature, and yet have been left largely unexplored to date. VL - 27 IS - 3 SN - 2059-6014 DO - 10.1108/RIBS-02-2017-0012 UR - https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-02-2017-0012 AU - Dow Douglas PY - 2017 Y1 - 2017/01/01 TI - Born global firms and accidental internationalists: Has Hennart (2014) opened a can of worms? T2 - Review of International Business and Strategy PB - Emerald Publishing Limited SP - 286 EP - 307 Y2 - 2024/03/29 ER -