Interfirm multidimensional trust in firm internationalization

This paper focuses on the collaboration between internationalizing firms and their local partners (bridge-makers) that can help them internationalize in the target market. This partnership requires the firm and its local partner to develop strong collaborations. An indication of a strong collaboration between the firm and the bridge-maker is the development of trust between the two (Safari and Chetty, 2019; Child et al., 2009) also argued for the importance of trust between the firm and the bridge-maker. Recently, Safari (2024) stated that it is essential to study trust and the different dimensions of trust between the firm and the bridge-maker to provide a better understanding of why some collaboration works and others do not. Zou et al. (2023a, 2023b) on interfirm trust in firm internationalization, the authors also call for more research on multidimensional trust in firm internationalization.

This paper responds to these calls and focuses on interfirm multidimensional trust and its effect on high-tech firm internationalization and its collaboration with bridge-makers. Smaller firms, such as SMEs, have fewer resources than larger firms (Sadeghi et al., 2021; Aliasghar et al., 2023) and need to collaborate with foreign business partners they trust to enter a foreign market (Tobiassen and Pettersen, 2023; Nagy et al., 2024; Yavuz, 2024; Stojčić et al., 2024). The reasons are that the focal firm is exposed to the liability of foreigners (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006) and the liability of outsidership (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009), because of a lack of knowledge about and connections in the target market.

The firm can overcome the liability of foreignness and outsidership by collaborating with a local partner (Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019) labeled this local partner as a bridge-maker between the firm and the target market. Puthusserry et al. (2021) followed suit and discussed the role of the bridge-maker in firm internationalization. The bridge-maker’s knowledge of the target market’s culture, language, norms, values, legal system, business and industry differences and competitors is essential (Puthusserry et al., 2021). It is, therefore, vital that the bridge-maker alleviates these barriers and helps the firm perform in the target market (Safari and Chetty, 2019). Others argue that trust in partnership is fundamental for firm success in international markets (Boersma et al., 2003; Bianchi and Saleh, 2020; Kupangwa et al., 2023; Lim et al., 2024). The essential role of trust has also been acknowledged in the context of firm–bridge-maker partnerships (Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019).

However, past research (e.g., Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021; Safari, 2024) explores the firm–bridge-maker partnership and discusses the role of trust in this partnership. Trust is multidimensional and needs to be treated as such (Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004; Zhang et al., 2023). In this paper, it is argued that trust is a multidimensional concept, and it uses the three dimensions of trust, such as contractual, competence and goodwill trust (Sako, 1991) to explore the firm–bridge-maker partnership. Multidimensional trust is developed between the firm and the bridge-maker, which impacts firm internationalization. The bridge-maker’s role is to “bridge” and enhance firm internationalization by introducing their products and services into the target market (Safari and Chetty, 2019). Because the bridge-maker has knowledge about and connection in the target market (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009; Zahoor and Al-Tabbaa, 2021; Benischke et al., 2023). The bridge-maker should have sufficient knowledge of local culture, political system, regulations, language, business knowledge and knowledge about competitors in the target market (Puthusserry et al., 2021; Bianchi and Saleh, 2020; Wang et al., 2024a).

Nevertheless, problems sometimes appear between the firm and the bridge-maker when they realize they cannot understand or help each other. Hence, multidimensional trust does not develop between the two. A successful partnership with a bridge-maker can only grow if trust is established between the firm and the bridge-maker (Child et al., 2009). However, as argued above, trust is multidimensional, and it is crucial to understand multidimensional trust in the partnership between a firm and a bridge-maker. In this study, I use the multidimensional trust framework by Sako (1991) to explore this partnership. This framework can show how different types of trust are developed and connected in the partnership. More specifically, the current paper is interested in studying the following research questions:

Based on case study research, the study sheds light on the multidimensional trust in firm internationalization. Firm internationalization suffers when trust is not developed between the firm and the bridge-maker. Even though the firm and the bridge-maker start with a formal, or in some cases verbal, contract (contractual trust), other types of trust, such as competence and goodwill trust, do not develop between the two. In successful cases, the firm and the bridge-maker develop competence trust because of the bridge-maker’s knowledge about the target market and the bridge-maker’s knowledge and understanding of the firm’s products and their way of working. In other cases, the bridge-maker and the firm develop goodwill trust, which means the bridge-maker’s willingness to learn and understand the firm’s way of working, product knowledge and the firm’s desire to adjust and commit to giving the bridge-maker necessary time and education so that the bridge-maker decreases its knowledge gap toward the firm. Once the firm and the bridge-maker develop multidimensional trust, the consequences are a strengthened partnership and a positive outcome for the firm in the target market. This paper develops and proposes five propositions regarding what types of trust are essential in this context and their consequences for firm internationalization.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, I outline the theoretical background of this paper; second, the method is explained; third, the findings are presented; fourth, a discussion will follow where propositions are suggested; finally, theoretical and practical implications are discussed and the limitations and suggestions for future research are outlined.

Different streams of concepts and theories have been used to explain firm internationalization. Past research has explained firm internationalization as overcoming the liability of foreignness (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006), causation and effectuation theory (Sarasvathy, 2001, 2009), access to foreign network relationships for overcoming the liability of outsidership (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009) or dimension of distance such as cultural distance, geographical distance, economic distance, psychic distance and institutional distance (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Dow and Karunaratna, 2006). However, the Uppsala international process model (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977) remains the most popular model of firm internationalization. This model generally focuses on explaining firm market commitment and knowledge acquisition to reduce uncertainty in the target market. A recent version of the Uppsala model has argued for incorporating trust to explain better firm internationalization (Vahlne, 2020; Vahlne and Johanson, 2020). Others have focused on the speed of internationalization and how trust can accelerate or demolish internationalization (Chetty et al., 2014a, 2014b; Oliveira and Johanson, 2021).

Safari and Chetty (2019) adopt the concept of trust in the context of firm internationalization and psychic distance. Nevertheless, they use trust as a unidimensional concept. Zou et al. (2023a, 2023b) literature review article identifies several research gaps and explicitly calls for more research on multidimensional trust in firm internationalization. The adoption of multidimensional trust has been used previously in studies on buyer–supplier relationships (Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004), public sector organizations (Höglund et al., 2019) and joint venture relationships (Boersma et al., 2003). In other words, multidimensional trust has been previously studied in many contexts; it has not been explored in the context of firm–bridge-maker partnerships and their consequences on firm internationalization.

O’Grady and Lane (1996) are among the first to discuss and implicitly introduce the term “bridge-maker” into the firm internationalization literature. They argued that firm internationalization and its success depend on having access to reliable bridge-makers in the target market. Similar findings have been found for the Finnish firm’s internationalization into the Japanese market (Ojala, 2008). Child et al. (2009) explicitly argue for the importance of a trustworthy bridge-maker in firm internationalization. The firm usually lacks knowledge about the target market and suffers from the liability of outsidership (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009) and needs to collaborate with actors with specific knowledge about the target market to enable internationalization (Guo et al., 2021; Safari et al., 2024). The bridge-maker’s knowledge about the target market and, precisely, the target market’s business policies, culture, competitors, local culture and other important factors (Safari and Chetty, 2019).

Trust is crucial to a firm–bridge-maker partnership (Child et al., 2009; Bianchi and Saleh, 2020) argue that distrust appears in the target market toward the trading party, such as buyers and sellers (Rutherford, 2012; Safari et al., 2013; Safari, 2014; Bettis-Outland et al., 2021; Mora Cortez and Johnston, 2020; Mora Cortez et al., 2023, 2024). Therefore, it is essential to work with knowledgeable and trustworthy bridge-makers in the target market (Child et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2022; Schweizer and Vahlne, 2022) argue that it is easier to overcome trust issues when two or more parties “like” one another. They further articulate that the greater the degree of liking between the firm and the bridge-maker, the more successful the collaboration will positively affect firm internationalization. This is in line with Safari and Chetty’s (2019) study, which found that trust between the firm and the bridge-maker is crucial and directly affects firm internationalization. Conway and Swift (2000) discussed trust as decisive for establishing a successful business connection with the bridge-maker, lowering the uncertainty between the firm in its home market and the target market. Puthusserry et al. (2021) argue that board members of the firm can act as bridge-makers for the firm in the target market because these board members know the target market, and they also have knowledge about the firm and connect the two, which benefits firm internationalization.

However, collaboration between the firm and the bridge-maker is not always successful and trust does not develop between the two (Guo et al., 2021; Zahoor and Al-Tabbaa, 2021) because of opportunistic behavior (Safari and Albaum, 2019). Others argue for the dark side of trust (Oliveira and Johanson, 2021), whereas some have argued for the coexistence of trust and distrust in interfirm partnerships (Raza-Ullah, 2021) or the dynamic nature of trust and distrust in project collaborations (Kostis et al., 2022). One way to explain the dark side or the coexistence of trust and distrust is to adopt a multidimensional trust approach (Höglund et al., 2019; Graça et al., 2021; Kauffman and Pointer, 2022; Kauffman and Pointer, 2022; Zou et al., 2023a, 2023b; Li et al., 2024; Polater et al., 2024); Wang et al., 2024b).

The literature review reveals some critical insights. Although some studies, such as Child et al. (2009) and, more recently, Safari and Chetty (2019), have incorporated trust explicitly in the conceptualization of firm internationalization and its connection to the firm–bridge-maker partnership, they have discussed trust as a unidimensional and neglected the complexity and its different dimensions. Trust is multidimensional (Han et al., 2022; Crisafulli and Singh, 2022; Mukherjee et al., 2023; Zafari et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024c) and needs to be treated that way to understand its full potential (Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004; Lewis and Weigert, 1985, 2012; Sako, 1991; Zhang et al., 2023). Recently, Zou et al. (2023a, 2023b) have also argued for more research on multidimensional trust conceptualization and studies in internationalization. In the present paper, I follow the bridge-maker literature derived from studies such as Puthusserry et al. (2021) and Safari and Chetty (2019) and combine it with the multidimensional trust literature (Sako, 1991, 1992; 1994); Zou et al., 2023a, 2023b; Rungsithong and Meyer, 2024) to understand what dimensions of trust that are important in the firm–bridge-maker partnership and their consequences for firm internationalization.

Sako (1991) discussed three types of trust: contractual, competence and goodwill trust. Contractual trust relates to how well the different parties can live up to their agreements and be capable of performing according to these agreements. Competence trust is associated with the competence of the parties, which both parties value when performing a specific action. Goodwill trust is related to open-ended commitments to take initiatives that benefit both parties (Sako, 1992, 1994). Discussing the multidimensionality of trust is essential because it is usually treated as unidimensional and static (Safari, 2012). Still, when conceptualized as a multidimensional concept, it is evident that different dimensions of trust develop between parties, and hence, it is dynamic (Höglund et al., 2019; Zou et al., 2023a, 2023b). A multidimensional trust conceptualization of trust in firm internationalization can explain the liability of foreignness (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006), the liability of outsidership (Johanson and Vahlne, 2003), the speed of internationalization (Oliveira and Johanson, 2021) and that internationalization speed and its acceleration is related to the development or lack of the development of multidimensional trust between the firm and the bridge-maker.

Zaheer and Zaheer (2006) studied the role of trust in internationalization and how it can differ in different countries and societies. They found that goodwill trust plays a minor role in countries with a higher degree of appropriate institutions in place, such as Germany. Instead, they discovered that contractual and competence trust are more relevant. For countries where institutions play a more minor role, however, goodwill trust is more relevant (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006). The same authors argued that trust can depend on the home market because of certain biases towards countries (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006). This could influence firm internationalization by which it finds difficulties establishing connections with bridge-makers and, in turn, developing trust.

Safari and Chetty (2019) state that working with trusted bridge-makers is key to a firm’s internationalization success. However, their findings show that not all bridge-makers contribute to successful internationalization. In some markets, the collaboration may be terminated for reasons such as a lack of competence trust, which means poor product knowledge or poor sales performance (Safari and Chetty, 2019) or the unwillingness to invest in the collaboration and develop goodwill trust (Sako, 1991; Höglund et al., 2019). This paper adopts Sako’s (1991) framework on multidimensional trust in the context of firm–bridge-maker partnerships (Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021; Safari, 2024).

This conceptual framework consists of multidimensional trust (contractual, competence and goodwill), which must be developed between the firm and the bridge-maker to enhance internationalization and establish the firm as trustworthy in the target market. Initially, the firm lacked knowledge about the target market. Therefore, they must start collaborating with bridge-makers to help alleviate their lack of knowledge (Child et al., 2009). The collaboration between the bridge-maker and the firm often begins with a contractual trust, written or verbal agreement (Sako, 1991). It can start with a contractual trust between the firm and the bridge-maker (Höglund et al., 2019). Based on experience and how the partnership develops, other forms of trust, such as competence and goodwill trust (Sako, 1992, 2006).

This paper uses in-depth qualitative research, the case study method following Eisenhardt (1989), Yin (1989), Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) and Dubois and Gadde (2002). In line with Höglund et al. (2019) and Sako (1991), this paper argues that qualitative studies are necessary to fully grasp the complexity of how multidimensional trust develops or does not develop and its impact on firm internationalization. Thus, the case study method is appropriate for the study. The research design followed a systematic combination of abductive logic by connecting research activities with research questions, theory and empirical findings (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). This also permits movement between empirical data and theory throughout the data analysis. The theory was continuously equated with revealing empirical data to advance theoretical insights (Johnston et al., 1999). The context is firm internationalization and the firms in this context are SMEs instead of MNEs because MNEs have resources and strong network positions (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009) and do not rely on bridge-makers as much as SMEs; hence, MNEs can acquire knowledge and bridge difficulties by themselves.

The study follows the European Commission’s (2005) definition of an SME: small firms employ fewer than 50 persons and have an annual turnover of less than 10 million Euros (European Commission, 2005). Medium-sized firms have less than 250 employees and a yearly turnover that does not exceed 50 million Euros. By this definition, the Swedish firms in this study are classified as small-sized enterprises (see Table 1).

Furthermore, the case companies were chosen based on four criteria. One of the founders (if more than one existed) should be available for interviews since they are the decision-maker for international business decisions. These individuals are expected to have relevant information regarding internationalization and first contact with the bridge-maker. The firm is not part of an MNE or is a subsidiary of another firm. Larger firms are usually well-connected, have more resources, and do not necessarily need external bridge-makers; hence, if they belong to a more prominent firm, it may prove irrelevant to this research. The case company should have between 10 and 99 employees. The reason was to exclude firms that were too large or too small. The firm is in the high-technology industry because the high-technology sector is relatively complex, and bridge-makers need product knowledge to be able to help them in the target market rather than just simple sales abilities. These criteria are in line with the study of Safari and Chetty (2019).

Almi Business Partner supplied a database to find the relevant case companies. Almi is a government-owned organization that helps companies with different aspects of their business, such as advisory services and venture capital. Almi has held an extensive database of Swedish SMEs since its establishment in 1994. Almi has legitimacy in the business sector and is appropriate for finding relevant case companies. After an initial search and screening, a list of potential case studies was telephoned to ensure they matched the criteria. The first telephone call was with the company’s CEO, where the study’s purpose and the research’s scope were explained. Based on these telephone calls, six case companies were identified, and eventually, five of them have been used in this paper; the sixth company was not available for the second and third rounds of interviews and hence excluded. A practitioner report was offered to the CEOs, following Fellows and Liu’s advice (Fellows and Liu, 2015). The founders’ profiles show they acted as CEOs during the interviews. Firms A and B were founded in 2001, Firm C in 2004, Firm D in 2007 and Firm E in 2003. The founders founded and started working for the company during the same years it was established. The founders had worked for similar firms before they established their companies. They had 15–25 years of work experience before starting their own companies.

Face-to-face interviews were performed from 2016 to 2017, and a second interview, mainly focusing on multidimensional trust, was conducted. I also interviewed managers in the case companies to avoid informant biases (Singh et al., 2020). Before the interviews, the case companies’ websites were studied, and their business partners were analyzed; this was important for getting a deeper understanding of the case companies. This was crucial to find out what foreign markets they operated in, their business partners, suppliers, distributors they worked with, customer knowledge, etc. Based on the secondary data and preanalyses of the case companies, it enhanced the possibility of asking specific questions about the different markets they operate in.

The interviews were conducted in Swedish or English if the respondent was comfortable with English. Each interview lasted between 80 and 150 min and is the primary data-gathering source for this study. The respondents also provided internal documents, slideshows, brochures, etc., which enriched the data. I also had guided tours of the business facilities by the CEOs of each case company.

To cover the research topic, the interview technique used was open-ended questions. I asked questions about the formation of the company and its growth strategy. Furthermore, I asked the CEOs and managers to recall markets they decided to enter by working with a bridge-maker. Questions related to initial contact, how they proceeded with the contact/collaboration, their challenges with the bridge-maker and how they helped them enter the market. How they established business partners in the target markets. I also asked about contacts and contracts established with the bridge-maker, on what bases (competencies), and how the collaboration evolved during internationalization. The efforts put in by both the companies and their bridge-makers to enhance internationalization (goodwill). Triangulation was reached by comparing the secondary and primary data. The secondary data gave information and insights about important events in the firm’s history and how they worked with growth. The interviews aimed to investigate the firms’ product development, reasons to sell to foreign markets and internationalization into foreign markets as, at this stage, they lack internationalization knowledge as a firm. They will face challenges and opportunities from internationalization into different markets. Cope and Watts (2000) suggested that respondents remember important events in detail as they represent critical phases in the firms’ growth history. Also, Gruber et al. (2012) and Chetty et al. (2015) found that founders would recollect these prominent occurrences when they feel that they met vital or challenging business partners as they are fixed in their memories. As challenging or important stages of internationalization are essential occurrences of great importance to the firm, the possibility for retrospective bias is trivial (Akerlof and Yellen, 1985; Chetty et al., 2014a, 2014b).

All the interviews were recorded with the permission of the respondents. Later, the interviews were transcribed and sent back to the respondents to permit them time to go over and make sure that the transcript was truthful and corresponded with their initial answers concerning information about some of their markets, products, business partners, etc. (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2005). The respondents made minor changes regarding which markets they entered and corrected or deleted the names of people mentioned during the interviews. The interviews and the secondary data were used to write the separate case studies. Pettigrew’s (1990) guidance was enabled, which suggests that combining primary and secondary data can sometimes be disorganized. Using case studies made organizing the data more insightful and practical for further analysis.

The data was analyzed in several stages (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). First, industry reports about the Swedish high-tech sector and Swedish industry in the industry were analyzed. Second, firm-level data was structured into different cases. This helped to understand the markets the case companies were involved in, CEOs’ and managers’ perceptions of working with different bridge-makers and the challenges and opportunities of working with different bridge-makers. I categorized the various dimensions of trust development in the collaborations, such as contractual trust, competence trust and goodwill trust, and their consequences for firm internationalization (Sako, 1991). For enhancing within-case analysis. Secondary and primary data were combined (Eisenhardt, 1989) to build a descriptive narrative for each interfirm collaboration.

Furthermore, I focused on capturing different dimensions of trust, their effect on firm internationalization and how these trust types evolved in partnerships. Emerging patterns related to multidimensional trust were identified in the three dimensions of trust for each case company. Hence, several themes for each case of company collaboration emerged. For the next stage, the abductive approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) was used to identify common themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994) for understanding how collaborations evolve between the firm and the bridge-maker, cross-case analysis was conducted (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). Cases were separately analyzed with the help of an independent and experienced qualitative researcher who also studied the cases separately. Comparisons were made with the skilled researcher, then within-case and cross-case themes were identified (Sinkovics et al., 2008). Table 2 provides an overview of the data. Most partnerships had started with a contractual trust. The respondents referred to this as the formal or informal initiating of the collaboration. Competence trust was referred to as competence about market knowledge, product knowledge, sales and access to relationship networks in the market. The participants referred to goodwill trust as investing in collaboration and partnership and putting in extra efforts to make the partnership work and cooperation successful that could benefit both the firm and the bridge-maker.

The five case companies have all experienced markets where the collaboration with the distributor did not work and where it has worked. In this chapter, the findings are presented. They have been divided into three different patterns based on the theoretical framework: First, initial contact with the distributor and the importance of contractual trust is discussed; trust, or lack of confidence (competence and goodwill trust) development during the process of internationalization and the outcome of the collaboration between the firm and the bridge-maker on firm internationalization. The discussion with the CEOs and managers was based on 135 cases of internationalization (Table 1). These case companies have experienced both success and failure with different bridge-makers. Table 3 shows the number of successes, failures and markets in progress. Out of the 135 cases of firm internationalization, there were 45 cases where the collaboration had worked, 40 cases where the partnership did not work 50 markets where initial contacts with bridge-makers had been established and initial collaboration had occurred (Table 3).

Initially, the companies contacted a distributor or were approached by a distributor to start a collaboration. The companies have contacted these distributors or have been approached by the distributors because they did not have knowledge of the target market or did not have the target market as an objective to start to sell to before the opportunity was provided to them by these distributors. The reason for all companies working with different distributors is that they want to increase their turnover and grow as a company. However, as they lack resources (personnel) and knowledge about the various countries they sell to, they must work with different distributors in different countries. All these collaborations either start with a formal or nonformal contract. It is evident from the findings that as the distributor and the firm do not know each other initially, there is no trust between them; hence, the need for a formal or informal contract, which means the collaboration starts with a contractual trust:

Once contact has been initiated between the companies and distributors in all cases, there has been a contractual agreement between the two. This can be a written or verbal agreement between the two parties. The case companies have all confirmed that they usually write a contract or have a verbal agreement with a distributor in the foreign market. In formal/written contracts, things can be more formalized, and both parties can agree upon certain things. The firm engages in these formal and informal agreements because the distributor can sell and provide customers with after-sales services. Nevertheless, in most cases, this is mainly based on secondary information or information received from the distributor rather than on experience in the collaboration.

Once the companies and the distributor have initial experience working together and the distributor has shown that they can perform according to what has been agreed upon, it is evident from the data that the main reason is the distributor’s competence. The distributor has demonstrated competence in selling products and providing services to the end-consumer about the products. They have also been committed and invested in the collaboration. If this is achieved, then competence trust is developed between the firm and the bridge-maker. This competence trust is related to the bridge-maker´s knowledge about the target market’s culture, legal system, norms, values, industry knowledge, consumer demand knowledge, knowledge about competitors in the market and that the bridge-maker has also proven to have the competency to have established ties to different essential business entities in the market. Suppose the bridge-maker possesses and shows these competencies. In that case, it has helped the firm enter the target market by selling its products and providing the end-customer with services and aftersales services. Similar patterns were identified in all cases where the collaboration had worked.

Nevertheless, it is also important to highlight that the firm has also invested in the collaboration where the distributor had performed and invested in the partnership. The bridge-maker has also shown that they, with time, have invested in collaboration by increasing their manpower and educating the new employers. Furthermore, the companies have all admitted that they, in turn, have not only relied on the initial contract or the contractual trust but also invested in the collaboration by sometimes only choosing one specific distributor/bridge-maker instead of working with several distributors. They have invested in educating distributors and their personnel about the companies’ product attributes and how to provide service to the end-customer:

In cases where the collaboration between the firm and the distributor has worked, it is based not only on selling the product but also on the distributor being able to provide service and other advice about the product to customers. As demonstrated by the CEO of Firm A’s quotation and their internationalization in Germany, the distributor has also invested in the collaboration by incrementally hiring more personnel and managing to sell in several cities other than Dusseldorf, where the distributor is based. Furthermore, competence trust also seems to affect goodwill trust, as demonstrated by a quote from the CEO of one of the case companies (Firm C):

The empirical findings show that with time and experience, competence trust develop in the partnership. The contractual trust is initially established based on the notion that the bridge-maker has the competencies to perform in the market. However, it is in the partnership and with experience the firm can know that the bridge-maker has these competencies. With experience, the bridge-maker also discovers that customers desire the product in the market. If competence trust is developed between the two, this leads to goodwill trust. This goodwill trust is the foundation for a long-term partnership.

In some cases, the partnership did not work because of external factors such as stronger competitors, either the superiority of their products or the much lower prices they provided. There are also cases where the collaboration did not work because the firm did not develop competence and goodwill trust toward the bridge-maker:

The above quotation demonstrates similar patterns where the distributor showed competence in sales abilities and providing services. Still, the collaborations were ended because of competitors’ competitive advantages in the market. A few cases had similar patterns where the distributor was competent, but the company could not compete on quality or prices. In other words, market mechanisms such as competitors’ superior products and lower prices terminate the partnership between the firm and the bridge-maker. It means that competence trust is vital in the partnership but not enough if external factors such as competitors are vital and outcompete the firm and the bridge-maker in the target market.

All the case companies acknowledge that it is very important to find the right distributor who is competent enough to sell but also competent about the products and their technical systems. For those distributors who could not sell or provide services to the end customer was because they did not understand the products and their systems. The CEOs and managers of the companies insisted that the distributor needs to be able to sell but also provide additional services regarding the product’s functionality, technology, systems adaptation and other product features. Furthermore, the distributors need different forms of competency in knowing the market regarding competitors, meaningful business relationships, networks and customer knowledge. The reason why most collaboration was ended was because the distributors lacked these qualities. There were some cases where the distributor lacked the ability to even sell a single product:

The quotations above are patterns that were emphasized by all the case companies. Incompetency led to the termination of partnerships with bridge-makers. This shows that competence trust is essential to continue and invest in the partnership.

In the empirical findings, another pattern is that some of the partnerships end because the distributor makes no investment. They do not invest in hiring new personnel, nor do they educate their personnel regarding the companies’ products. In other cases, the distributor starts well, and the collaborations are working, but because of a change in the product and its functionality or a change in the market, they are not interested in adjusting to the company’s needs:

In the empirical findings, the lack of competence trust pattern was evident. The partnership between the firm and the bridge-maker does not work because the bridge-maker lacks competence. It can be related to competence about the market (competitors, customers, relationships and networks), the product and its technical functionality and the lack of providing services because of lack of technical competence. However, even if the partnership starts well and sometimes competence trust develops, without goodwill trust (commitment) in learning about new product categories and, more importantly, investing in partnership, it will fail, which has negative consequences for the firms’ internationalization outcome.

The cases reveal findings on the interplay between different dimensions of trust development or lack of trust between the firm and the bridge-maker. They also show that internationalization is triggered by the start of a partnership when initial contacts are established between the firm and the bridge-maker. To some respect, this follows the same line as Child et al. (2009) and Safari and Chetty (2019) studies. However, what was different from previous studies is the dimensions of trust internationalization starts with. In this study, our cases revealed that contractual trust, a formal or informal agreement between the firm and the bridge-maker, is essential in initiating and starting these internationalizations.

Furthermore, these partnerships and the establishment of contractual trust (Sako, 1991) are based on managers’ notions that the bridge-maker has the necessary competence to perform in the target market. In terms of that, the bridge-maker can sell the firm´s product and provide aftersales service. All cases of internationalization involved contractual trust (Höglund et al., 2019) between the firm and the bridge-maker. Decisions to establish the contractual trust are connected to the deliberation that the firm and bridge-maker – can benefit each other and profit from the partnership. Therefore, the firm has decided on contractual trust based on the notion that the bridge-maker has the necessary knowledge, connections and competence, meaning competence trust. In other words, in this initial phase, the idea and belief that the bridge-maker has competence led to contractual trust. Hence, I put forward the following proposition:

Once the partnership has been initiated by a contractual trust outlining what the firm and the bridge-maker are obliged to perform in the collaboration and the two work toward these obligations, they acquire experience in the partnership. It is during these experiences can develop other dimensions of trust. In the empirical findings, three patterns were identified that all partnerships would go through one or more of these patterns. They are the partnership works because of the development of competence and goodwill trust. The partnership did not work because of external factors such as market mechanisms. The firm and the bridge-maker faced superior competitors in terms of better-quality products and lower prices. The partnership did not work because of multidimensional trust. In these cases, the partnership was terminated because it only involved contractual trust, not competence trust or the willingness to invest in the collaboration and develop goodwill trust.

In some cases, market mechanisms terminate the collaboration despite the development of competence trust. In other cases, the partnership fails because it fails to develop competence trust by demonstrating competencies. However, in successful partnerships, the firm and the bridge-maker work toward developing competence and goodwill trust (Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004; Zhang et al., 2023). Here, the bridge-maker showed competence in selling and technical and system competence of the products, provided services such as customer care and invested in the collaboration by learning more about the firm and its product and adapting to the firm’s way of working. In other words, the firm has developed competence trust (Höglund et al., 2019) toward the bridge-maker. This is an important finding as it adds to Puthusserry et al.’s (2021) term that if internal bridge-makers (board members) do not have the “right” competence, the firm needs to go outside its organization to acquire the required competence, which is from an external bridge-maker. In other words, the cornerstone of collaboration is that the firm develops competence trust toward the bridge-maker and invests (goodwill trust) in the bridge-maker. On the other hand, the bridge-maker bridges the firm’s knowledge gap by being competent in the target market and investing in collaboration:

Competence trust positively and directly affects goodwill trust in the partnership. The goodwill trust is crucial for developing long-term partnerships. Goodwill trust positively affects internationalization outcomes. If bridge-makers are willing to adapt to the firm’s needs and commit to learning about the firm and its products, internationalization outcomes will be positively affected. Previously, trust has been discussed in the partnership between the firm and the bridge-makers (Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019). This study adds to these studies and argues that goodwill trust, when developed by the firm and the bridge-maker, is a commitment to learning and adapting in the partnership. Goodwill trust directly affects long-term collaboration and positively affects firm internationalization. Hence the following proposition:

During firm internationalization, it is argued and proposed that competence and goodwill trust must be developed between the firm and the bridge-maker. Nevertheless, external factors such as competition in the target market sometimes hamper collaboration. In several internationalization cases, the partnership enjoyed contractual and competence trust. However, the partnership was terminated due to more robust competitors. This means that competence trust is sometimes not enough but rather the prerequisite for a successful collaboration. However, even if the firm and the bridge-maker do not find ways to compete in the market, the partnership ends despite competence trust. However, if the firm and the bridge-maker had found ways to override the competitor’s superiority, meaning investing in the partnership and developing goodwill trust (Sako, 1992), that might have changed the situation. In other cases, the bridge-maker partially or wholly lacked the competence to perform in the target market either by selling but not being able to provide services to the end-customer or completely being unable to sell and perform in the target market. In these cases, not only goodwill trust but also competence trust did not exist in the partnership. It must be terminated if the partnership does not enjoy competence and goodwill trust. This termination abruptly impacted the firm’s internationalization, and the firm needed to identify a new partner in the target market. In other words, a lack of competence and good trust negatively affect contractual trust in the partnership and firm internationalization. Hence, the final proposition in this study:

This paper aimed to answer the two research questions: What dimensions of trust are crucial between the firm and the bridge-maker for enhancing firm internationalization? And what are the consequences of developing or not developing multidimensional trust between the firm and the bridge-maker for firm internationalization? Figure 1 demonstrates the contribution of this paper. I adopted Sako’s (1991, 1992) conceptualization of trust into contractual, competence and goodwill trust. This framework helped understand the partnership between the firm and the bridge-maker by developing a framework (Figure 1) of multidimensional trust in the firm-bridge-maker partnership. The literature on firm–bridge-maker partnership (Child et al., 2009; Safari and Chetty, 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021). Safari (2024) has discussed trust in this context as a unidirectional concept. This paper adds to this body of knowledge by providing the interplay between multidimensional trust in the partnership between the firm and the bridge-maker and its consequences for firm internationalization.

This framework also differs from Sako’s work by demonstrating the interplay between dimensions of trust and that lack of competence and goodwill trust has a direct and negative effect on contractual trust. In other words, the contribution of this paper is processual and not linear, meaning that one dimension of trust leads to another and has a linear development. This paper contributes to knowledge by showing that linearity only occurs when the partnership works. However, in more complex situations, where market mechanisms alter the importance of competence trust or when parties are unwilling to develop goodwill trust and compete, this will negatively affect contractual trust in the partnership. In other words, the framework is processual compared to other linear models that are more concerned with causal relationships between concepts rather than the process of the interaction between partners that affects the different dimension directions depending on external market mechanisms or internal collaboration mechanisms.

This paper also contributes knowledge that firm internationalization is not only related to the liability of outsidership (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). Even when the firm has access to a bridge-maker in the target market, it must also develop competence and goodwill trust in the partnership for superior internationalization outcomes. This competence and goodwill trust in the partnership and not general insidership sets the prerequisites for better internationalization outcomes. This is also believed to be relevant for the speed of firm internationalization (Oliveira and Johanson, 2021). The speed of internationalization might be affected by multidimensional trust in partnership. How fast or how the level of insidership can be related to competence and goodwill trust in partnership rather than solely on the firm’s ability to commit to the market and accelerate its internationalization.

This paper has several managerial implications. Managers should find or deliberate a bridge-maker based on the notion that they know sales. These bridge-makers should be knowledgeable about the products offered by the firms in terms of not only product features but also providing services regarding products’ different types of functionalities. Managers can use different methods to identify knowledgeable bridge-makers. They can collect information from secondary sources if possible, to assess the quality of the bridge-maker. If acquiring information about the bridge-makers is impossible, managers should decide on partnership investments incrementally. They can do this by smaller investments in the partnership and as they gain experience in the partnership and can better judge the quality of the bridge-maker, they can further decide on future investments in the partnership. In this way, they minimize pitfalls and do not risk major financial losses.

However, even if the collaboration works during the internationalization process, things can go wrong, and the bridge-maker might engage in opportunistic behavior or decrease its commitment in the partnership. Here, it is advised that managers should reevaluate the collaboration based on bridge-makers’ performance and competencies. For firms to be successful in their internationalization, the bridge-makers must demonstrate sales and service performance. Here, it is suggested that managers and firms work with their selection and re-assessment process of bridge-makers. It is suggested that firms need to work actively with the selection process of the bridge-maker, check their previous collaborations with other companies and follow up on the current working relationships so that future investment decisions into the partnership is made accurately. The appearance of goodwill trust – meaning investment in the collaboration –can lead to a further increase in competence and competence trust in the partnership. Once competence trust and goodwill trust have been established, this will have a strong positive effect on firm internationalization.

This paper is based on qualitative case study research and has several theoretical insights and contributions. However, the findings of this paper need to be tested and clarified by more extensive and quantitative studies. I suggest that future research studies the multidimensional trust between the firm and the bridge-maker in a large survey to verify or reject the contributions of the present study. Furthermore, this paper focused only on high-tech Swedish firms’ internationalization and their collaboration patterns with bridge-makers, so future research should involve more than the high-tech and Swedish context. Although I firmly believe this paper’s theoretical contributions are valid for other contexts, involving other contexts for generalization is essential.

It is further suggested that future research also explore the possibility of involving other entities that impact firm internationalization. For example, only the external bridge-maker was considered in this study, not the internal bridge-makers (Puthusserry et al., 2021). Internal entities such as board members, highly well-connected managers, or CEOs may, in fact, bridge and enhance internationalization in some markets even stronger than external ones as they are more knowledgeable of their own companies and their products. Furthermore, the study also suggests that internationalization speed (Oliveira and Johanson, 2021) and acceleration might well be explained by multidimensional trust. Hence, it would be wise to investigate the importance of multidimensional trust concerning the speed of firm internationalization.