Internationalization of the firm can be understood as an innovation decision process (Andersen, 1993; Johanson & Vahlne, 2009; Jones & Coviello, 2005). Moreover, the extant research suggests that organizational learning, innovation and internationalization are linked together in a complex way (Chiva, Ghauri, & Alegre, 2014; Eriksson, Johanson, Majkga°rd, & Sharma, 1997). Reflecting on the significant advancement in international business literature since the Uppsala internationalization process model first proposed by Johanson and Vahlne (1977), Forsgren (2016: 1139) called on further research to address how various “counteracting forces affect the shape and direction of the internationalization process”, such as relationships among players inside and outside the business network. We argue that research into business model innovation in the host country for MNEs will provide such new insights into internationalization process as business model innovation not only deals with views from the ‘supply side’ but also the ‘demand side’ (Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017). This is important as noted by Rask (2014: 158) “An international perspective on business model innovation is rare in the literature but is a common phenomenon in business.” Rask (2014) further suggested that “internationalization through business model innovation involves the creation and reinvention of the business itself”, which is an important part of internationalization process as described in the revised Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009). Even though the literature has attempted to identify typologies of business models (Lee, Shin, & Park, 2012; Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005; Pateli & Giaglis, 2005; Weill et al., 2011; Christoph Zott et al., 2011), very few are about business model innovation (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Schneider & Spieth, 2013), especially in the international context (Anwar, 2015; Zucchella & Siano, 2014). What becomes clear is that to understand business model innovation and the activity driven strategies from home to host country, there is a need to explore local contextual factors that impact on the business model and furthermore how these contextual variations affect the changes of the business model (Dunford, Palmer, & Benveniste, 2010). Dunford et al. (2010: 656) suggested that business model literature so far has paid much less attention to the specific details of processes whereby new business models are “discovered, adjusted and fine-tuned” in one given host country. Most of the studies have been cross sectional (for example, Calof & Beamish, 1995; Machado-da-Silva et al., 2001). There is call for a sharper focus such as within particular industries, for example, the retail industry (Massa & Testa, 2011; Sorescu, Frambach, Singh, Rangaswamy, & Bridges, 2011) and service-based companies (Castaño, Méndez, & Galindo, 2016; Kindström, 2010). The business model literature suggests that the process of business model innovation can be considered as an on-going learning process (Chanal & Caron-Fasan, 2010; McGrath, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010) with the need to consider what is known as double-loop learning (changing underlying values and assumptions) (Moingeon & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). Given the close relationship between organizational learning, innovation and internationalization (Chiva et al., 2014), we believe using organizational learning as a framework to classify the different patterns of business model innovation in the international context provides a promising angle.