International Market Entry Strategy
We help companies design and implement an international market entry strategy, so that they can scale internationally and amplify their impact in the world.
We help companies to scale internationally by supporting them in three key areas of their business:
10x Strategy
for many companies this is a robust international market entry strategy that is ten times better than their current best thinking
10x Momentum
in other words moving 10x faster into international markets than your current pace
10x Cashflow
cash in the bank is increasing by at least 10% year on year
To get those results, there are three big levers you can pull…
The first lever is Critical Thinking which includes:
- Developing an expanded vision - big picture thinking, rather than a “nickel and dime” picture of what you want to achieve.
- Pursuing deep insights - into the opportunities, threats, strengths, weaknesses and barriers to entry in the countries you’re hoping to enter. Understanding the size and dynamics of each market, who your ideal clients and competitors are and how to appeal and deal with them, appreciating the nuances of each culture and what that means for your team as you begin to work there.
- Getting a robust grip on reality - developing certainty that you can deliver on the vision you’ve developed and that your company is set up to do it.
To get those results, there are three big levers you can pull…
The first lever is Critical Thinking which includes:
- Developing an expanded vision - big picture thinking, rather than a “nickel and dime” picture of what you want to achieve.
- Pursuing deep insights - into the opportunities, threats, strengths, weaknesses and barriers to entry in the countries you’re hoping to enter. Understanding the size and dynamics of each market, who your ideal clients and competitors are and how to appeal and deal with them, appreciating the nuances of each culture and what that means for your team as you begin to work there.
- Getting a robust grip on reality - developing certainty that you can deliver on the vision you’ve developed and that your company is set up to do it.
The second lever is the ability to make Definite Decisions - high-quality choices which you make and adhere to. This is enhanced by:
- Having uncompromising objectives - clear, achievable goals that take you beyond your comfort zone. Without these, you won’t take the risks that you need to take to be internationally successful.
- Knowing your numbers - to make high-quality decisions you need to be across and in control of all the numbers in your business. This includes financial numbers and marketing data.
- Creating a powerful plan - a step-by-step plan which sets out who must do what, by when, to make your vision a reality.
And finally, to get things moving, you’ll need Extraordinary Execution - you must consistently carry out your strategy to a very high standard.
Extraordinary Execution becomes much easier when you have:
- Super systems - across all areas of the company, so that the founders can stop working 80 hours a week and start getting maximum leverage from their time.
- A top team - who are 100% on board with your ‘global vision’ for the company. Ideally, they’ll also have at least 90% of the skills needed to make the vision reality, and be willing to put in 120% effort to get results.
- Active accountability - external observers who give objective feedback, encouragement and counsel on your plans and on progress. We believe that to a large extent, environment dictates performance.
Executive Advisory Program
The Executive Advisory Program (EAP) is our flagship offering in the international market entry strategy space.
It is designed for companies turning over $2M+ and enables us to work with your team across a number of areas, to give you the tools to realise your global vision with minimum stress and maximum impact.
We start with a four-month engagement, as in our experience this is the minimum amount of time that you need to get results. Each month we meet twice to work on the areas that you have identified as priorities, including:
- an hands-on, ‘doing’ workshop, to give you the tools that you need to go global and,
- a 1:1 mastermind session to review your financial dashboard, problem solve, track progress and celebrate wins.
In between workshops, you can reach out to us for support,
whenever you need it.
Our Advisors
Meet our team of trusted international strategy experts
Our Clients
What our clients say
For many business leaders, AUKUS still feels abstract. It appears in headlines alongside submarines, geopolitics, and long-term defence spending – important, but distant from day-to-day commercial decision-making. As a result, many executives assume AUKUS is either too big, too political, or too slow to be relevant to their business today.
That assumption is wrong. AUKUS is not just a defence pact. It is an industrial realignment that will shape how Australia buys technology, builds sovereign capability, and chooses partners for decades to come. For companies operating in advanced technology – particularly in Europe – understanding AUKUS is no longer optional. It is a prerequisite for making informed decisions about Australia as a market.
This article is not about submarines. It is about what AUKUS actually changes – and where the real commercial opportunity sits.
First: What AUKUS Actually Is (and Isn’t)
AUKUS is a trilateral partnership between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is structured around two pillars.
- Pillar 1 focuses on nuclear-powered submarines. This is the most visible part of AUKUS, and the part most people associate with the agreement. It is also the slowest-moving, most capital-intensive, and longest-dated component. Timelines here run 10–15 years.
- Pillar 2 is where most businesses should be paying attention.
Pillar 2 covers advanced capabilities such as autonomy, cyber, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, undersea systems, sensing, and integration technologies. These capabilities are not theoretical. They are being tested, procured, and integrated now – often in fragmented, fast-moving ways that sit outside traditional “big defence” narratives.
If you are waiting for Pillar 1 contracts, you will wait a long time. If you understand Pillar 2, opportunities already exist.
AUKUS Is an Industrial Shift, Not Just a Defence Program
The most important thing to understand about AUKUS is that it is driving an industrial reset inside Australia.
Australia is reassessing how it sources critical technologies, how dependent it is on fragile global supply chains, and how much sovereign control it needs over key capabilities. Defence is the catalyst – but the effects extend far beyond Defence.
Mining, energy, ports, logistics, critical infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing are all being pulled into the same conversation around resilience, security, and sovereignty.
For businesses, this matters because procurement decisions are no longer made on technical merit alone. Increasingly, they are shaped by questions such as:
- Where is this technology built?
- Who controls it?
- Can it be supported locally?
- Does it strengthen Australia’s sovereign capability?
These questions now act as commercial filters – long before any formal tender is released.
Why SMEs Matter More Than They Think
A common misconception is that AUKUS is a game for primes and defence giants.
In reality, SMEs will deliver much of the capability that AUKUS requires. Not through headline contracts, but through specialised components, software, subsystems, and integrations that larger players cannot build quickly themselves.
Australian primes are actively looking for agile partners who can move fast, integrate smoothly, and operate reliably. Scale matters less than execution. Speed often matters more than brand.
For European SMEs, the challenge is rarely capability. It is understanding how Australia evaluates risk, trust, and relevance – and positioning accordingly.
The Defence-Only Trap
One of the most common mistakes foreign companies make is pursuing Australia through a defence-only strategy.
Defence procurement is slow by design. It is cautious, complex, and unforgiving of early missteps. Companies that rely on defence contracts as their first source of Australian revenue often run out of time or cash before momentum builds.
The firms that succeed take a dual-use approach.
They establish early commercial traction in sectors such as mining, energy, or critical infrastructure – sectors that share many of defence’s technical requirements, but move faster. These early deployments create local proof points, revenue, and trust. Defence pathways follow later.
In Australia, Defence is rarely the starting point. It is the destination.
Sovereignty: The Quiet Gatekeeper
“Sovereignty” is often misunderstood as protectionism. In practice, it is about risk management.
Australian buyers – both public and private – want confidence that critical systems will be available, supported, and controllable in times of stress. This does not exclude foreign companies, but it does require them to be structured and partnered appropriately.
Being “Australian enough” does not mean building everything locally or investing prematurely. It means understanding what sovereignty looks like in practice – and meeting that threshold intelligently.
Companies that plan for this early move faster. Those that ignore it are left wondering why interest never converts into contracts.
From Strategy to Execution
AUKUS creates opportunity – but only for companies that can execute.
Australia rewards delivery over ambition. Momentum over theory. Credibility over storytelling. The firms that succeed are those that understand the environment, move deliberately, and build trust step by step.
For business leaders, the real question is not “Is AUKUS relevant to us?”
It is “Do we understand how it changes the rules of the market we are entering?”
Those who do will find Australia far more open than expected. Those who don’t will conclude – incorrectly – that the opportunity was never real.
The Origins of the “Boys’ Game” Myth in Global Trade
On 9 February 2026, Japan held a snap general election that produced one of the most consequential political outcomes in its post-war history.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) secured 316 seats in the 465-seat House of Representatives, giving the party a two-thirds supermajority.[1] Including coalition partners, the government now controls more than 350 seats in the lower house.[2]
This is the first time since World War II that a single Japanese political party has achieved such a result.[1] The scale of the victory matters less for symbolism than for what it enables: governability.
For international business, governability is not an abstract political concept. It determines whether regulatory settings endure, whether infrastructure plans are executed, and whether firms can make capital allocation decisions with confidence beyond a single electoral cycle.
Japan has moved from a period of political constraint to one of institutional capacity.
From minority government to policy execution
The contrast with recent history is stark. In 2024, the LDP lost its parliamentary majority and governed as a minority. Legislative momentum slowed, internal party factions constrained policy, and long-discussed reforms, particularly in defence and economic strategy, advanced only incrementally.[1]
For internationally active firms, this period translated into hesitation. Major policy settings were debated but not settled, leaving companies to defer investment decisions in regulated sectors such as energy, defence, and advanced manufacturing.
The February 2026 election reversed that dynamic. With a supermajority in the lower house, the Takaichi government can pass legislation rapidly, override upper-house resistance if required, and make policy commitments that extend beyond a single electoral cycle.[2]
This shift from negotiation to execution materially lengthens planning horizons for business.
Economic confidence and market reaction
Financial markets responded immediately. On 10 February 2026, the Nikkei 225 rose more than 5 percent, reaching a record high.[4]
The rally reflected less enthusiasm for any single policy than relief at renewed predictability. Takaichi’s economic platform, often referred to as “Sanaenomics,” includes fiscal stimulus, targeted tax cuts such as the proposed suspension of the 8 percent food tax, and selective deregulation.[2][4] While Japan’s public debt remains elevated, analysts have noted that policy paralysis was increasingly viewed by markets as the greater risk.[4]
For international firms, predictability is a prerequisite for investment. A government with the political capacity to follow through reduces regulatory risk and increases the attractiveness of Japan as both a production base and an anchor market for regional operations.
For trading partners, including Australia, a more decisive Japan is also a more reliable economic counterpart, particularly in manufacturing, energy, and advanced technology supply chains.[4]
Implications for the United States
For Washington, the election result simplifies strategic coordination.
A Japanese government with strong parliamentary control, public backing for defence expansion, and a clearly articulated deterrence posture is easier to plan with than one constrained by domestic fragmentation.[3]
From a commercial perspective, this alignment also increases policy durability. Defence industrial cooperation, technology partnerships, and long-term procurement arrangements are more viable when counterpart governments can make commitments that survive internal political challenges.
The likely areas of deepening cooperation include operational integration at US bases in Japan, defence industrial and munitions collaboration, and contingency planning related to the East China Sea and Taiwan.[3]
However, stronger alignment also brings higher expectations. A Japan with political momentum will be expected to shoulder a greater share of regional security responsibilities, not merely endorse them.
China and the end of strategic ambiguity
Beijing’s response to the election was swift. Chinese officials characterised Takaichi’s platform as a return to “militarism,” signalling concern about the combination of expanded military capability and political mandate rather than immediate intent.[2]
Takaichi has consistently argued that Japan must be able to deter threats to its territory, including scenarios in which a conflict over Taiwan spills into Japanese airspace or waters.[1][3] Her electoral mandate reduces ambiguity about Japan’s strategic direction.
For business, reduced ambiguity cuts both ways. Clearer policy direction lowers uncertainty in Japan, but it raises the likelihood that economic tools will be used more deliberately by China in response. Analysts expect trade friction, regulatory pressure, and episodic market access restrictions to feature more prominently than direct security escalation.[2]
Japan today is better positioned to absorb such pressure than it was a decade ago, but firms operating across both markets will need to account for greater political sensitivity in commercial decisions.
What this means for Australia
For Australia, the implications are indirect but material.
A more stable and forward-leaning Japan strengthens the Quad, deepens bilateral defence cooperation, and accelerates collaboration in areas such as critical minerals, energy security, and maritime domain awareness.[3]
From a business perspective, Japan’s renewed capacity to act also improves its value as a long-term partner. Australian firms engaging with Japan in energy, resources, and advanced manufacturing can do so against a backdrop of greater policy continuity and clearer strategic intent.
At the same time, greater Japanese assertiveness makes regional alignments more visible. As Japan moves closer to the strategic foreground, partners closely aligned with it, including Australia, become easier to categorise in Beijing’s strategic calculus.
This does not create new risks so much as clarify existing ones.
Conclusion
Japan’s February 2026 election did not make the country more aggressive. It made Japan more capable of acting on decisions it had already taken.
For international business, that distinction matters. Governability determines whether strategies can be executed, whether investments can be amortised over time, and whether partnerships rest on stable foundations.
In an Indo-Pacific environment shaped increasingly by power, capacity, and resolve, Japan has moved from hesitation to clarity. Firms and governments operating in the region will need to adjust to that reality.
Japan has chosen decisiveness. The region, including its business community, now has to respond accordingly.
This week, thousands of organic food brands are gathering in Nuremberg for BIOFACH – the world’s most influential organic trade fair, in Nuremburg. For many European brands, it’s an opportunity to showcase their strengths and successes. Strong domestic sales. Credible certifications. Loyal customers. Growing inbound interest from international buyers.
And yet, year after year, I see the same pattern: brands that look perfectly positioned for export on paper struggle to convert international interest into sustainable growth. The reason is rarely about product quality – it’s usually strategy.
Here are some uncomfortable (but solvable!) truths facing European organic brands that want to scale beyond familiar borders.
Organic Success at Home Does Not Automatically Travel
Europe is one of the most mature organic markets in the world, known for its strict environmental and food quality standards, and premium products. Consumers are educated, retailers are specialised, regulatory frameworks are well understood and garner attention from governments, investors and buyers worldwide. In this environment, many brands thrive by aligning closely with shared values: provenance, purity, sustainability and ethics.
However, international markets expose a different reality. Export growth introduces new constraints: unfamiliar retail structures, different consumer preferences and decision-making, higher price sensitivity, and less patience for explanation. What works in a values-aligned domestic market often fails in faster, more commercially driven export environments.
For European brands looking to open up export markets, growth requires letting go of some comforting assumptions.
Brand Names Must Travel, Not Just Translate
A surprising number of export challenges begin with the brand name and identity itself.
Many European food brand names are built on local dialects, wordplay, or cultural references that feel authentic at home, but create friction abroad. Buyers struggle to pronounce them. Consumers fail to remember them. In some cases, the name unintentionally signals “small,” “childish,” or “parochial” rather than premium or credible.
Export-ready brands treat naming as a commercial tool, not a cultural artefact. The test is simple: can your brand name be easily said, recalled, and respected by someone who does not share your cultural context? If not, it becomes a hidden growth ceiling.
Quality Alone Is Not a Differentiator in Export Markets
European organic brands often underestimate how crowded international shelves have become.
Organic quality is expected, not rewarded. In many Asia Pacific markets, consumers face dozens of organic options across imported brands, domestic producers, and increasingly sophisticated private labels. Certification logos blur together. “Organic” becomes table stakes.
A critical question often goes unanswered: how is your quality meaningfully different from the minimum legal organic standard offered by a supermarket private label at a lower price?
Brands that scale successfully do not assume quality will be recognised. They actively signal why it matters, to whom, and in what context.
That starts with accepting a hard truth: most consumers do not evaluate food the way producers do. They are not comparing farming methods, certification nuances, or supply chain decisions. They are making fast, situational choices – often in unfamiliar categories – based on cues that help them answer three questions:
- What problem does this solve for me?
- Why is this better for my needs than the alternatives on this shelf?
- Why is it worth paying more for, here and now?
Export-ready brands translate abstract quality into concrete relevance. Instead of leading with inputs (“organic,” “artisanal,” “traditional”), they connect quality to outcomes: taste consistency, digestibility, safety, suitability for children, convenience, or cultural fit with local eating habits.
This signalling changes by market and channel. What resonates in a European organic specialist store may fall flat in a mainstream Asian supermarket, where organic is one attribute among many and trust is built differently. Quality must be framed in language and cues that align with local priorities – whether that is health, gifting, status, functionality, or reliability.
Brands that get this right do not dilute their standards. They make them legible. They move from asking consumers to believe in their quality, to helping them recognise it quickly and confidently. And in crowded export markets, that distinction is often the difference between interest and repeat sales.
The Local Organic Store Trap
Many European brands are deliberately designed for specialist organic retailers. This can be a strength, but it can also become a trap.
Packaging, price points, messaging, and range architecture that work beautifully in a values-driven organic shop often struggle in mainstream, hybrid, or international channels. Extreme positioning limits flexibility: it restricts pricing options, narrows potential partners, and makes adaptation feel like compromise.
To be clear, this is a valid strategy if scale is not the goal. There is a strong argument that organic should remain local, and that long-distance transport undermines its purpose. But brands that want international growth must design for adaptability, not purity alone.
Strategy Can’t Be Outsourced to Distributors
One of the most common, and costly mistakes I see is brands outsourcing strategic decisions to distributors by default. Pricing logic, positioning, target customer definition, and even brand storytelling are frequently handed over early in market entry. While distributors play a critical execution role, their incentives are transactional and short-term. Brand building is not their mandate.
The result is dependency, misalignment, and fragmentation across markets. Distributors should execute a strategy, not define it. Brands that retain strategic control build coherence, optionality, and long-term value.
I was talking with a friend in Korea last week about what he looks for in a brand as a distributor, and this was exactly the point he made. His company specialises in working with brands – they are not purely trading commodities and so if a brand wants him to distribute their products, but not to do the work to help him succeed, he’s not interested.
Packaging Designed for Compliance, Not for Shoppers
European organic packaging is often designed to reassure regulators and existing customers rather than guide new shoppers.
Front-of-pack panels become overloaded with certifications, dense text, and “naturalness” cues that require time and familiarity to decode. In export markets, where decisions are made quickly and context is limited, this reduces shelf impact.
International growth demands packaging that communicates clearly, confidently, and instantly. Compliance matters, but clarity sells.
I fully get that your packaging needs to be minimal and sustainable, but that definition changes when you sell abroad. If I had €10 for every time I’ve seen organic brands deliver their “paper” packaging into markets such as Vietnam, where the humidity is high & the packaging and contents just absorbs all that water, then I could be sipping cocktails on a tropical island as a retiree…
Scaling Organic Requires Strategic Trade-Offs
Organic values remain essential. They are not the problem.
The challenge is assuming those values can simply be repeated, unchanged, in every market. International scale requires interpretation, not replication. It demands conscious commercial choices rather than defaulting to domestic habits.
The next phase of growth in organic will favour brands that are clear, adaptable, and strategically intentional – not just well-intentioned.
If BIOFACH is about showcasing what you’ve built, export strategy is about deciding what you’re willing to change to grow. And that conversation is where real international success begins.
If you’re attending BIOFACH 2026 in Nuremburg this week and considering export markets for your food brand, connect with me here.
Table of Contents
The End of Predictable Trade
At Davos this year, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney said the quiet part out loud.
The old international order is not coming back. We are not in a transition. We are living through a rupture. And countries that fail to act together risk finding decisions made for them — not with them.
That message was aimed at governments. But it applies just as directly to business.
For decades, companies operated in an environment where access was assumed. Markets stayed open. Supply chains stretched across borders. Rules were imperfect but broadly predictable. Many firms built growth strategies — and public commitments — on the expectation that this stability would continue.
That expectation no longer holds.
The Greengrocer’s Trap
Carney grounded his speech in Václav Havel’s essay The Power of the Powerless. Havel tells the story of a greengrocer who places a political slogan in his shop window every morning. He doesn’t believe it. He displays it to avoid trouble. When everyone behaves this way, the system persists — not because it is believed, but because participation is easier than resistance.
Carney’s point was that countries behaved similarly for years. They went along with the rituals of the rules-based order even while knowing enforcement was uneven, because the system still delivered growth and access.
The same dynamic exists inside companies.
Most large organisations publish purpose statements and ESG commitments. Many believe in them sincerely. Far fewer have tested what those commitments mean when they collide with revenue, market access, or growth plans.
That test often arrives without warning.
Lessons from Recent Global Shocks
After Russia invaded Ukraine, some companies exited quickly. They absorbed losses, unwound long-standing operations, and accepted disruption. Others hesitated. Their assets were deeply embedded, contracts were hard to unwind, and withdrawal carried costs they were not prepared to absorb.
The difference was not moral conviction. It reflected exposure created long before the crisis: where operations sat, where revenue came from, and how easily the business could move.
The same pattern has repeated across recent shocks.
During the supply-chain disruptions of 2020–2022, firms dependent on a small number of suppliers saw production halt almost overnight. Those that had already qualified alternatives faced delays and higher costs, but they kept operating.
When European gas prices spiked, some manufacturers were effectively trapped. Their plants relied on a single energy source, contracts offered little flexibility, and relocation was unrealistic. Survival depended on emergency government support. Others shut high-cost plants temporarily, shifted production, or absorbed losses while renegotiating terms.
These outcomes were shaped by decisions made years earlier. The pressure did not create the constraint. It revealed it.
The same is now visible in technology. When export controls hit advanced semiconductors, some firms adjusted development timelines or redirected investment. Their research teams were spread across countries, products could be adapted, and growth did not hinge on a single approval. Others had far fewer options because design, talent, and market access were tightly concentrated.
The Strategy of Independence
Carney spoke about countries building greater independence in areas like energy, finance, and supply chains. In business terms, this is about having room to move when conditions change.
That does not mean disengaging from the world. It means recognising where commitments depend on uninterrupted access — and what happens when that access becomes uncertain.
Companies already cooperate across borders on standards, climate initiatives, and workforce practices. These arrangements can help. But they tend to hold only when firms have options of their own. When cooperation is used to paper over reliance on a single supplier, market, or platform, it breaks down quickly once costs rise.
For boards and senior leaders, Carney’s message points to a practical question.
Where does the organisation rely on keeping its head down because examining certain assumptions would be uncomfortable or expensive?
Most boards review financial and operational risks. Fewer examine where stated commitments depend on markets, suppliers, capital, or approvals the company does not control.
A simple starting point is to ask which relationships would be hardest to unwind under pressure, where growth depends on one market behaving predictably, and where efficiency has quietly displaced flexibility.
The aim is not to eliminate dependence. It is to understand it clearly while there is still time to act.
Carney was blunt about one thing: waiting for the old order to return is unlikely to help. Conditions have shifted, and planning based on yesterday’s assumptions carries real risk.
Critical Questions for the Boardroom
For business leaders, the uncomfortable truth is this: values still matter, but standing by them now requires more preparation than before.
And the question is no longer abstract.
If you are not shaping the terms of engagement, you should expect to live with the consequences.
This blog is part of a series adapted from The Global Standard, Cynthia’s forthcoming book on building internationally competitive businesses. In the lead-up to the hardcopy release, we’re unpacking some of the most persistent myths that hold companies back from global growth.
International Business Myths: Success Abroad Relies Solely on Connections
One of the most persistent misconceptions about international expansion is the belief that success hinges on having the right connections: a distributor who can open doors, an investor with influence, or a government contact who can make things happen. It is an appealing idea because it promises a shortcut. If only you knew the right people, your company could go global overnight.
But international business does not work that way. Relationships matter, of course; they can accelerate progress, open opportunities and provide early insights. Yet without the structure to support them, they collapse under their own weight. Connections can open doors, but only strategy, data and disciplined execution can keep those doors open.
In my experience, companies that cling to the “connections-first” mindset rarely achieve true international success. They invest in introductions instead of intelligence and rely on goodwill instead of groundwork. When the first few deals falter because pricing is misaligned, the product is not fit for market, or logistics cannot deliver at scale, they often conclude that the timing was wrong — when in fact the problem was structural.
The truth is that connections are only one gear in a much larger engine. In The Blueprint for International Success I describe the full set of moving parts required to make a business truly global: a crystal-clear strategic vision; market selection based on data, not guesswork; a deep understanding of the ideal international client and what drives them; confidence about which channels to sell through and how to optimise them; marketing that resonates with overseas customers and delivers measurable returns; a sales system designed for cross-border business; the right team; systems that can scale internationally; and tools that allow people to work productively, harmoniously and profitably across time zones and cultures.
To that list, I would add active accountability — external advisers or partners who hold you to account for progress against your strategy and guide and encourage you on the journey. Without these elements in place, no number of connections will carry a company far.
The firms that thrive internationally understand that relationships are multipliers, not substitutes. When supported by clarity, capability and consistent delivery, connections amplify impact. When they stand alone, they lead nowhere.
Looking Ahead
The myth of the “right connections” assumes that influence and access are unevenly distributed — that the global stage belongs only to those already inside the network. The next myth takes that assumption even further, suggesting that global trade itself is a game designed for men.
That idea, too, deserves to be challenged — and it’s where the next chapter of The Global Standard begins.
Table of Contents
In the opening piece of this series, we explored why protectionism doesn’t build prosperity, despite its political appeal. As my forthcoming book, The Global Standard makes clear, protectionist thinking is only one of several outdated narratives that continue to shape how leaders view international business.
The next myth, deeply embedded in the mindset of many mid-market founders, is the belief that international expansion is something only large, well-resourced corporations can pursue.
This assumption may have been true thirty years ago, but today, it is profoundly outdated. In fact, the global economy is now more accessible to smaller companies than at any point in history. And the companies capitalising on this shift are not multinational giants, but founder-led, agile businesses that understand the new rules of global competitiveness.
This blog unpacks why global growth is no longer a corporate privilege, and why founder-led companies are increasingly the ones rewriting the playbook.
The Old Model: Size = Global Capability
For most of the post-war era, going global meant:
- establishing subsidiaries
- travelling extensively
- navigating complex regulatory regimes
- maintaining large international teams
- relying on capital-intensive supply chains
Expansion was bureaucratic, slow, and staggeringly expensive. Only corporates had the teams, capital and infrastructure to shoulder the burden.
But that world is gone.
The New Reality: Global Expansion Has Been Democratised
Three forces – all explored more deeply in The Global Standard – have fundamentally changed the equation:
1. Technology has levelled the playing field
2. Logistics and supply chains have become plug-and-play
3. AI has radically reduced the cost of global capability
Companies can now:
- research markets
- translate content
- localise marketing
- analyse competitor data
- map international customer segments
…in minutes, not months, and often at a fraction of the traditional cost.
These changes have not just lowered the barriers. They’ve changed the definition of “global readiness” entirely.
Global Readiness Is No Longer About Size - It’s About Clarity
In my work advising companies around the world, I see a consistent pattern: the businesses that succeed internationally are not the ones with the largest budgets, but the ones with the clearest thinking. Three factors matter most:
1. Clarity
A company must understand:
- who its international customer is
- why they should care
- what the business uniquely offers that resonates across borders
This clarity is far more important than scale.
2. Capability
Capability today means:
- the ability to deliver consistently
- the systems to support cross-border operations
- the processes to sell and serve internationally
It does not require hundreds of staff.
3. Commitment
Most international failures stem not from ability but from inconsistency – leaders start enthusiastically, then lose focus, momentum or discipline.
Commitment is the differentiator.
These three traits – clarity, capability and commitment – form the through-line of The Global Standard.
Real-World Proof: Founder-Led Companies Are Going Global Faster
The misconception that only large corporations can expand internationally is usually dispelled the moment leaders see what smaller, founder-led companies are achieving when they follow the right strategy. At Dearin & Associates, we’ve worked with hundreds of mid-sized firms across sectors and continents, and we’ve seen firsthand how clarity, focus and a structured framework can propel even modestly resourced companies into global markets at remarkable speed.
The following case studies – all real clients of Dearin & Associates – illustrate this shift. Each company began as a domestic player with limited international capability. None had the size, staff numbers or capital traditionally associated with global expansion. Yet each one achieved rapid, meaningful traction overseas by applying the strategic principles outlined in The Global Standard. Their journeys demonstrate a central truth: in today’s global economy, international strategy matters far more than size.
Survival: Taking First-Aid Global with Precision and Pace
Survival is a family-run Australian business that designs premium first-aid kits for families, workplaces, outdoor adventurers and emergency professionals. The products were exceptional – intuitive layouts, high-quality components, stringent testing – but like many mid-sized firms, the team lacked clarity about how to take their product to the world.
They had interest from international distributors and sporadic overseas sales coming through online channels, but no cohesive strategy to convert this interest into real traction. Their questions were familiar:
Which region should we prioritise?
How do we price for markets with different margins and expectations?
What structure do we need to scale reliably?
When our Senior Advisor for Consumer Products, Mike Todd and I began working with the founders, the first step was to remove guesswork. Market analysis showed that Europe was the natural launchpad, with large outdoor markets, strong appetite for premium safety products, and consumer willingness to pay for quality. With that decision made, we helped the Survival leadership build a structured expansion roadmap, including
- A regionally aligned pricing and margin model
- Distributor selection criteria
- Regulatory pathways for medical products
- A global brand narrative tailored to European consumers
- A trade-show strategy to accelerate visibility
Within months, Survival showcased at ISPO in Munich — a pivotal moment that placed them in front of serious distributors and buyers. With a clear follow-up and conversion plan in place, the company secured partnerships across Europe and the Middle East. By the end of the first year, Survival products were selling in 22 countries, supported by a scalable operating model, streamlined logistics, and a cohesive global brand.
This transformation illustrates a central message of The Global Standard: companies don’t go global because they’re big; they go global because they’re clear.
PumpEng: Overcoming Market Misalignment and Accelerating U.S. Growth
PumpEng manufactures world-class underground dewatering pumps designed for harsh mining conditions. The engineering was strong, the performance exceptional – yet after a year of operating in Idaho, the company struggled to gain traction in the massive U.S. mining sector.
Leadership suspected they had entered the wrong region, but the deeper issue was market misalignment. The U.S. mining market is highly regional, with distinct procurement structures, clusters of activity, and entrenched supplier relationships. PumpEng needed precision, not effort, to win.
D&A’s team began by mapping the entire U.S. market:
- Where mining activity was concentrated
- Which companies dominated procurement
- Competitor positioning and pricing
- Customer pain points by region
- How procurement cycles differed across states
This market analysis revealed that PumpEng had been focusing its energy in a region with limited demand for submersible pumps of their specification. The real opportunity lay in completely different mining states where conditions matched PumpEng’s strengths.
Once their focus shifted, we redesigned their market-entry approach:
- A refined U.S. ideal customer profile
- A sharper value proposition highlighting performance advantages over existing competitors
- A targeted sales plan aligned to procurement cycles
- A channel strategy that prioritised the highest-potential regions
Within three months, sales tripled. Within two years, PumpEng became a serious competitor in the U.S. market – strong enough to be acquired by Franklin Electric in 2025, validating the strength of their technology and strategic positioning.
PumpEng’s story highlights a core principle of The Global Standard: international success depends less on size and more on strategic focus.
Redsbaby — From an Australian Favourite to a Global Challenger
Redsbaby is a family-founded Australian pram and stroller brand built around thoughtful design, strong aesthetics and a deep understanding of parents’ needs. Domestically, the brand grew quickly through a community-first model, but when the founders first attempted international expansion, the results were disappointing.
They invested $80,000 in a major European trade show and left with dozens of business cards… but no meaningful commercial outcomes. The underlying issue wasn’t product quality or brand strength – it was the absence of a structured approach to global expansion.
Redsbaby faced common challenges:
- Pricing that didn’t translate competitively into European markets
- A value proposition that needed localisation
- An internal team stretched across too many priorities
- No system for managing international leads or distributor onboarding
Partnering with Dearin & Associates, the founders stepped back to rebuild their international strategy from the ground up, using the Blueprint for International Success™, which appears later in The Global Standard. Together, we:
- Re-engineered the pricing model to ensure competitiveness across multiple regions
- Adapted the brand messaging for European consumers
- Created a structured funnel for trade-show leads and follow-up
- Defined the team roles required for consistent global execution
- Constructed a distributor strategy and selection framework
Within months, the difference was dramatic. Leads from the previous year were successfully reactivated. The company secured seven European distributors, re-establishing momentum and credibility in the market. Redsbaby shifted from “local hero” to genuine global contender – without needing the headcount or capital of a multinational.
The success of these companies reinforces a key argument of The Global Standard: clarity and systems empower mid-sized companies to scale internationally just as effectively as global giants.
Latest Insights
Read the latest insights on international market entry from our #GoGlobal blog:
Austria for Food Retail: What It Takes to Win on the Shelf
Austria, nestled in the heart of Europe, offers an attractive yet demanding landscape for food and beverage exporters. With nine million consumers, strong purchasing power and a taste for premium quality, it’s often used as both a proving ground ..
Analysing the Phenomenal Success of Jellycat in the Chinese Market
Jellycat, a high-end gift brand founded in London in 1999, has become synonymous with “the world’s softest comfort toys”. Since 2013, Jellycat in the Chinese market has become a cult brand beloved by children and adults alike.
Indonesia’s Live Shopping Boom: How Your Brand can Benefit
Indonesia, with its population of over 280 million people, has become one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic e-commerce markets. Even the closure of TikTok Shop in October 2023 couldn’t slow its momentum.
