1. Introduction
In today’s rapidly changing business landscape, the effective implementation of corporate governance plays a pivotal role in helping organizations navigate the challenges brought about by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) (Azila-Gbettor et al., 2018; Nowacka & Rzemieniak, 2022; Santoso et al., 2020; Tamara et al., 2021). Corporate governance serves as the bedrock for guiding businesses, ensuring their resilience, and safeguarding the interests of stakeholders. Corporate governance ultimately aims to facilitate well-informed decision-making, as defined by a system of procedures and structures that extend to the highest echelons of the organization, family, and ownership (Rustam & Narsa, 2021).
However, family firms, with their significant global presence (Andersson et al., 2018; De Massis et al., 2018; Villalonga & Amit, 2020) face a distinctive set of challenges concerning corporate governance. Current statistics paint a stark reality, revealing that only a minority of family firms successfully transition beyond the first generation (Islas-Moreno et al., 2022; Karam et al., 2019; Ng et al.2021). The absence of clear succession plans often leads to conflicts, particularly in the second generation, where siblings frequently find themselves in disagreement (Karam et al., 2019). The departure of a founder or their passing triggers crises or family disputes, given the founder’s typically exclusive authority within the company during their tenure.
The urgency of conducting bibliometric research in family firms is underscored by the escalating complexities that emerge as family firms’ progress to the third generation. This progression brings about additional intricacies, marked by the involvement of cousins, in-laws, partners, and their families, thereby heightening the potential for conflicts and diluting the shared mission of the family firm. The inclusion of family members in the workforce, whether individually or collectively, adds to the complexities of governance dynamics (Islas-Moreno et al., 2022; Saraswati & Darma, 2020). In this context, this study offers itself as an important endeavor, positioned within the particular corporate governance framework observed in family firms. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis tries to discover and acknowledge the enormous influence of governance on the trajectory of family enterprises by addressing the need to untangle the growing dynamics and problems.
This research aims to provide a thorough overview of the ever-changing corporate governance landscape, with a particular emphasis on family firms. The investigation starts by closely examining publishing patterns throughout time, offering insightful information about how this important topic is changing. The study then explores the complex dynamics of cooperation, specifically in the areas of co-authorship and international partnerships, clarifying how these joint ventures influence the theoretical models of research in the field of corporate governance in family firms. The study conducts a comprehensive analysis of co-authorship patterns and international partnerships in an effort to shed light on the significant influence that collaborative efforts have on the advancement of knowledge and ideas in this specialized field. Finally, this research comprises identifying the most common study subjects and themes and charting their evolution throughout time. This detailed examination seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the existing and future directions of corporate governance research within family firms. The study provides useful insights into the status of the field and anticipates future paths by unraveling the evolution of these themes. This analytical method not only improves our understanding of the numerous nuances of family firm governance but also offers incisive perspectives on new trends and shifts in emphasis, contributing to the ongoing growth of this important area of research.
The present study represents a noteworthy development in the field of corporate governance in family firms, motivated by the identification of a sizable vacuum in the bibliometric evaluations of previous studies on this particular topic. While some existing studies have touched on corporate governance in family firms, they have fallen short of providing a comprehensive overview of the research landscape. In contrast, this research distinguishes itself through a specialized focus on corporate governance within family firms, encompassing extensive temporal coverage and a nuanced exploration of evolving research trends. These aspects collectively emphasize the imperative and value of this bibliometric analysis, offering a substantial addition to the existing body of knowledge on corporate governance within family firms.
Additionally, the study introduces a distinctive perspective by directing attention to publications indexed by Scopus, intentionally departing from the prevailing research approaches of Do Nascimento João et al. (2014) and Pu et al. (2022), who predominantly relied on the Web of Science database. The deliberate choice to focus on Scopus publications ensures a unique viewpoint, acknowledging the pivotal role of database selection in shaping the breadth and depth of bibliometric research. Moreover, this study adopts R Studio-Biblioshiny1, in contrast to prior studies such as Do Nascimento João et al. (2014) using VOSviewer and Pu et al. (2022) using CiteSpace and the VOSviewer. This methodological distinction not only introduces a layer of uniqueness to the research but also enhances its rigor, further propelling the advancement of knowledge in the field of corporate governance within family firms.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Corporate governance in family firms
The analysis of corporate governance in family firms is a significant and imperative field of research. Distinguished by numerous unique characteristics that render it a captivating and indispensable subject of investigation, the significance of corporate governance in family firms extends beyond mere adherence to regulations, as it plays a fundamental role in their ability to withstand challenges and maintain organizational strength (Carmeli & Markman, 2011). In contrast to non-family firms, family firms face complex dynamics that require careful management of the alignment of interests among owners, top executives, and the board of directors. The act of balancing is crucial in order to guarantee the ongoing success of the organization (Do Nascimento João et al., 2014).
The convergence of familial and commercial interests inside family firms presents a distinctive level of intricacy. In the absence of efficient governance, the aforementioned convergence has the potential to give rise to conflicts and mismanagement, posing a threat to the long-term sustainability of the organization (Cirpan & Alayoglu, 2018). According to Parada Balderrama (2015), governance methods have a crucial role in establishing structured institutions that centralize decision-making, thereby ensuring the preservation of harmony and continuity. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that family firms frequently last across numerous generations, hence emphasizing the significance of governance in preserving the founder’s vision (Abdelaziz, 2021). Effectively addressing the difficulty of maintaining alignment with the firm’s original aims in the face of evolving leadership is a key focus of sound governance processes.
The implications of worldwide occurrences, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have brought attention to the importance of governance characteristics in influencing the behavior and performance of family firms (Calabrò et al., 2022). The aforementioned statement highlights the current significance of governance methods for effectively managing the intricate nature of family firms. Furthermore, within family firms, there is a strong emphasis on corporate governance, which places significant value on the principles of openness and accountability. The implementation of various methods, including the inclusion of independent directors and the establishment of committees, is achieved (Ahmed & Uddin, 2022). Succession planning, an essential aspect of governance, plays a vital role in facilitating smooth leadership transitions, which are of utmost importance for the sustained success of family firms (Buckman et al., 2020; Chirapanda, 2020; LeCounte, 2022).
Additionally, factors like family dynamics, ownership structures, and governance practices have a significant impact on the performance of family firms (Chirico et al., 2018; Moghaddam et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2023). According to Ghafoor et al. (2023), CEOs who are members of the same family as the owners of a corporation may place greater emphasis on non-financial goals, exerting an influence on the overall direction of the company. The primary difficulty that persists is the need to strike a balance between control and professionalization (El Masri et al., 2017). The examination of corporate governance in family firms presents a compelling field of research owing to the complex dynamics between family and business objectives, the presence of intergenerational obstacles, and the imperative to address competing stakeholder interests. The sustainability, harmony, and adaptability of family firms are dependent upon effective governance procedures within their specific context. Consequently, understanding the long-term performance of these organizations necessitates a comprehensive examination of this topic, as it is both intriguing and crucial. The aforementioned citations underscore the distinctive and intricate characteristics of corporate governance inside family firms, rendering it a captivating and vital area of scholarly inquiry (Cristiano, 2018; Debellis et al., 2023; Galavotti & D’Este, 2023).
2.2. Bibliometric analysis in corporate governance in family firm
With a particular emphasis on corporate governance, the preceding bibliometric research (Aparicio & Iturralde, 2023; Brito-Ochoa et.al., 2020; Casado-Belmonte et al., 2021; Casprini et al., 2020; Do Nascimento João et al., 2014; Pu et al., 2022) has significantly advanced our understanding of various facets of family firms. These studies collectively delve into key areas such as sustainability, dynamic capacities, innovation, internationalization, and corporate governance within family firms. To provide a clearer comparison of their conclusions, Table 1 below summarizes the specific focus areas of each study and serves as a concise overview, outlining the specific research focus of each study and allowing for easy comparison of their contributions to the understanding of family firms, especially in the context of corporate governance.
Table1. Previous research focus
Nevertheless, there are other justifications as to why the bibliometric analysis elucidated in this work has significant value and is imperative for further progress of the domain of corporate governance in family firms. Previous studies have examined bibliometric analyses pertaining to family firms and corporate governance. However, there remains a gap in the literature on a comprehensive investigation of the specific area of corporate governance within family firms. The present study focuses on examining the nuances of corporate governance in family firms, aiming to provide a more specialized viewpoint that can offer distinct insights into this crucial research domain.
Furthermore, the extant body of literature has uncovered deficiencies and constraints in the comprehension of corporate governance within family firms, as identified by Do Nascimento João et al. (2014). The objective of this study is to expand upon the aforementioned reviews and fill in the existing knowledge gaps by presenting a thorough examination of the latest scholarly publications. To achieve this, a Scopus database will be utilized, along with a distinct time frame spanning from 1998 to 2022. By doing so, it extends the temporal coverage and the number of articles analyzed, allowing for a more up-to-date and expansive assessment of the field. Although Pu et al. (2022) conducted a bibliometric analysis focused primarily on the overarching landscape of family firm governance research, they did not delve deeply into the evolving trends and research themes within the field. This study seeks to fill this gap by not only mapping the intellectual structure but also by exploring the changing dynamics, research hotspots, and emerging trends within corporate governance in family firms over time. This nuanced approach is crucial for understanding how the field has evolved and identifying areas that require further exploration.
3. Methodology
3.1. Methods
This work used bibliometric analysis to investigate the patterns of publishing, research output, themes, and collaboration that are associated with corporate governance in family firms. With this instrument, one can locate a nation within the context of the world, an institution within the framework of a nation, or a scientist within the context of their professional community (Dixit et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In addition, this method provides a comprehensive scientific picture of the authors, countries, organizations, and collaborations that contribute to the overall body of knowledge on a global scale. A second analysis was done on the data’s conceptual (co-occurrences of authors and keywords, progression of topics), intellectual (co-citation network), and social (collaboration network) structures.
3.2. Database selection
There are many databases that index and cite bibliographic sources, including journals, books, reviews, and conference proceedings from all over the world and from specific regions. Every database has a different strategy, has a different major emphasis, and focuses on a different primary area of interest. This study will offer a distinct viewpoint on corporate governance in family firms by focusing on Scopus papers, unlike the works of Do Nascimento João et al. (2014) and Pu et al. (2022), among others, which used the Web of Science database. Using different databases makes it possible to show the importance of of database selection in determining the breadth and depth of bibliometric studies. This highlights the subtleties that result from the variations between Scopus and other bibliometric databases while enabling the research to expand upon previously established research approaches.
Scopus was chosen to obtain given that its comprehensive coverage of domains spanning multiple disciplines, great coverage of citation reports, and availability of a wide range of analysis tools. Scopus is the world’s most comprehensive data collection of scientific literature that has been peer-reviewed. It has more than 80 million indexed items. Scopus is the database that is frequently used in place of other databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, PubMed, etc. With this database, researchers are able to undertake bibliometric studies, which can provide helpful insights about the research environment in a certain subject area. Scopus contains citations and abstracts from works that have undergone expert review in the relevant fields, including papers, journals, books, patent notes, and conference proceedings (Mansour et al., 2022). Additionally, the academic community on a global scale has made extensive use of Scopus, which has developed a reputation as a dependable and comprehensive bibliometric database for academic research (Jabali et al., 2020).
3.3. Search queries
A search query was run on the main search interface of the Scopus database using the following search fields: “Article title”, “Abstract”, and “Keywords”. The terms “corporate governance” and “family firm” were included in the search. The search was carried out in December 2022 with the aim of identifying a wide range of academic documents published between 1998 and 2022. The search was carried out in December 2022 with the aim of identifying a wide range of academic documents published between 1998 and 2022. This timeframe of 25 years provides a comprehensive dataset that accurately captures the progression of corporate governance in family-owned enterprises throughout the years. The search turned up 514 documents as a result. Figure 1 displays our search strategy based on Zakaria et al. (2021). After that, the bibliometric technique was applied to all retrieved documents.
Figure 1. Data search and collection process
Source: Zakaria et al. (2021)
3.4. Data analysis
Biblioshiny - RStudio was used to analyze the 514 documents retrieved, which were exported as a.csv file from the Scopus database and then analyzed using the Biblioshiny application. Using the Scopus database, some fundamental tasks were also carried out, such as identifying about publication and citation patterns.
3.5. Integrated analysis
3.5.1. Conceptual analysis
The need to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current knowledge landscape within the field of family firms is what drives the use of conceptual analysis, which includes the examination of author co-occurrences, keyword associations, and topic progression. The methodology employed in this approach is consistent with the research conducted by Fagerberg et al. (2012) and Xi et al. (2015), who analyzed the knowledge base and the research map in the field of family firm, respectively.
The examination of co-occurrences between authors and keywords enables the identification of highly significant authors and frequently used terms within the academic literature. This approach provides valuable insights into prominent research issues and prevailing trends. Thematic progression refers to the analysis of the development of topics in the literature, which allows us to see the evolution of the research field. This strategy is in line with what Xi et al. (2015) used as their methodology.
3.5.2. Intellectual analysis
The use of co-citation network analysis in our study serves as an intellectual examination, drawing inspiration from the study by Randhawa et al. (2016) that provided a thorough evaluation of open innovation. This approach holds special significance in the identification of pivotal works and their interconnectedness within the body of literature pertaining to family firms. The objective of this study is to analyze the co-citation patterns of scholarly papers and authors in order to identify the fundamental knowledge base and influential contributions that have influenced the field of family firm research. This methodology facilitates the identification of prominent areas of research and highly referenced scholarly publications, while facilitates the establishment of links between distinct intellectual groups.
3.5.3. Social analysis
The application of cooperation network analysis in this study aligns with the domain of social analysis, similar to the methodology employed by Kraus et al. (2020) and López-Fernández et al. (2016) in their examination of the sharing economy. The present analysis aims to examine the collaboration networks established among scholars and institutions in the domain of family firms. This study offers valuable insights into the intricate social dynamics involved in the process of knowledge generation and transmission. It sheds light on the research networks and collaborations that have played a significant role in advancing the field of family firm scholarship. Thus, the analyses in this study are firmly rooted in the current body of literature and have been modified to align with the particular context of research on family firms. The aforementioned studies collectively contribute to a complete evaluation of material within the sector, allowing for the identification of significant knowledge domains, intellectual paths, and social networks. These findings are crucial for increasing our understanding of family firms.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Global trend of publications
In this section, the mapping of corporate governance in family firms in the Scopus database is presented. Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of publications and citations between 1998 and 2022. The blue bars represent the number of publications produced annually, while the red lines represent the average number of publications. It is generally accepted that the number of publications has fluctuated but tends to increase.
According to Figure 2, since 1998 there has been considerable growth in the number of publications, each year with higher numbers than the previous one. Thus, from 1998 to 2009 a constant increase in publications is observed, although the levels are still low. The period between 2010 and 2022 is a phase of expansion, culminating in the year 2022, when publications reach 132 documents. Throughout this period, there was a constant upward trend in posts, with occasional drops. As an illustration, there was a slight decrease in the years 2013 and 2014, and subsequently a steady expansion up until the year 2022. It is noteworthy to acknowledge that the year 2020 may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The data shows a consistent upward trajectory in production over time, although with intermittent oscillations. It is imperative to understand the reasons driving these patterns.
Figure 2. Total publication per year and mean total citation per publication
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
The analysis of the 5-year moving average reveals a consistent upward trajectory from the early 1990s to approximately 2010. Following the year 2010, a phase of relative stability or minor decline in production is observed, particularly between 2013 and 2016. Academic production had a sharp increase form 2016 onwards, reaching its maximum in 2022.
Table 2 shows a breakdown of the different types of publications that make up the dataset of 514 publications. With 448 publications, 87.16 percent of the total, the most common form of publication is an academic article. The book chapter, which represents 6.03 percent (31 documents), while the conference papers and reviews represent 2.14% (11 documents) and 3.31% (17 documents) of the publications, respectively. Books and erratum are the least frequent publications, at 0.39% of the total.
Table 2. Document type
|
Total Publication
|
Percentage
|
|
Article
|
448
|
87.16
|
|
Book
|
2
|
0.39
|
|
Book chapter
|
31
|
6.03
|
|
Conference paper
|
11
|
2.14
|
|
Erratum
|
2
|
0.39
|
|
Review
|
17
|
3.31
|
|
Total
|
514
|
100.00
|
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
4.2. The most relevant sources
4.2.1. The most relevant journals
Figure 3 shows the number of articles on corporate governance in family businesses published in academic journals. “Corporate Governance: An International Review”, a joutnsl specialized in the topic of corporate governance, stands out from the rest of the journals with 41 articles. The “Journal of Family Business Strategy”, a journal focused on family business that began its journal in 2010, occupies the second position, with 19 publications, followed by the journal of “Corporate Ownership and Control”, outlet specialized in corporate governance topics, with 15 articles.
This list includes some of the main academic publications in the field of corporate governance and/or family firm such as “Corporate Governance: An International Review,” “Journal of Family Business Strategy,” “Corporate Ownership and Control,” “Journal of Management and Governance,” and “Journal of Family Business Management.” These journals are highly regarded publication venues for scholars and researchers interested in exploring these topics. In addition, six academic journals are focused on the field of sustainability, which stands out for the importance of the topic. The existence of publications such as “International Journal of Wine Business Research”, “British Food Journal”, “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology” and “Frontiers in Psychology” supports the idea that interdisciplinary topics are gaining broader acceptance. Overall, we can assert that there is a significant level of activity and diversity in the field of research on corporate governance and family firm. The presence of several interdisciplinary publications on this list indicates multiple perspectives in the research. Further information is provided in Appendix.
Figure 3. The most relevant journals
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
4.2.2. The most influential organizations
In order to investigate the prominent affiliations and scholarly contributions pertaining to corporate governance in family firms, the study shows the universities and centers where research groups works on this topic. However, the number of publications does not serve as the only measure of an affiliation’s impact within the domain of study. Additional factors, such as the caliber of the research and the standing of the authors, also exert influence. Based on the data presented in Figure 4, it is evident that the University of Bocconi (Italy) has emerged as the leading contributor in terms of scholarly publications pertaining to corporate governance in family firms. This suggests that Bocconi University potentially places a significant priority on research in this particular subject area, thereby establishing itself as a prominent university within this discipline. The American University of Sharjah (UAE), Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (Lebanon), Universiti Utara Malaysia (Malaysia), and the American University of Beirut (Lebanon) are among the universities that have published ten or more publications on the topic of corporate governance in family firms. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the ramifications, an examination was conducted of the effect exerted by their published scholarly works. The number of citations received in other academic journals might help with the assessment of intellectual influence.
Figure 4. The most influential organizations
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
4.2.3. Author’s production over time
As shown in Table 3, the total number of citations (TC), total number of publications (TP) for each author, and the average number of citations per author and year (TC/TP) are calculated by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years since the author’s first publication. The dataset provides a detailed picture of author production and influence, providing insights into the scholarly scene across many years and fields.
Table 3. Author production over time
|
Rank
|
Author
|
Year
|
TP
|
TC
|
TC/TP
|
|
1
|
Minichilli A.
|
2016
|
3
|
280
|
35
|
|
2
|
Kellermanns F.
|
2012
|
1
|
309
|
25.75
|
|
3
|
Guzmán A.
|
2015
|
2
|
112
|
12.44
|
|
3
|
Trujillo M. A.
|
2015
|
2
|
112
|
12.44
|
|
4
|
Guzmán A.
|
2019
|
3
|
36
|
7.2
|
|
5
|
Al-Okaily J.
|
2020
|
4
|
28
|
7
|
|
6
|
González M.
|
2020
|
1
|
26
|
6.5
|
|
6
|
Guzmán A.
|
2020
|
1
|
26
|
6.5
|
|
7
|
Kellermanns F.
|
2015
|
2
|
48
|
5.33
|
|
8
|
Trujillo M-A
|
2019
|
2
|
25
|
5
|
|
9
|
Kellermanns F.
|
2018
|
1
|
26
|
4.33
|
|
10
|
Bodolica V.
|
2015
|
1
|
36
|
4
|
|
10
|
González M.
|
2019
|
2
|
20
|
4
|
|
10
|
Spraggon M.
|
2015
|
1
|
36
|
4
|
|
11
|
González M.
|
2015
|
1
|
32
|
3.55
|
|
12
|
Li W.
|
2014
|
1
|
35
|
3.5
|
|
13
|
Bodolica V.
|
2020
|
1
|
13
|
3.25
|
|
13
|
Spraggon M.
|
2020
|
1
|
13
|
3.25
|
|
14
|
Li W.
|
2015
|
2
|
25
|
2.77
|
|
15
|
Li W.
|
2017
|
1
|
15
|
2.14
|
|
16
|
Minichilli A.
|
2017
|
1
|
14
|
2
|
|
17
|
Minichilli A.
|
2022
|
1
|
3
|
1.5
|
|
18
|
Kellermanns F.
|
2019
|
1
|
7
|
1.4
|
|
19
|
Bodolica V.
|
2021
|
1
|
4
|
1.33
|
|
19
|
Spraggon M.
|
2021
|
1
|
4
|
1.33
|
|
20
|
Di Toma P.
|
2017
|
1
|
8
|
1.14
|
|
21
|
Bodolica V.
|
2010
|
1
|
9
|
0.64
|
|
22
|
Spraggon M.
|
2010
|
1
|
9
|
0.64
|
|
23
|
Kellermanns F.
|
2022
|
1
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
24
|
Bodolica V.
|
2017
|
1
|
3
|
0.42
|
|
24
|
Spraggon M.
|
2017
|
1
|
3
|
0.42
|
|
25
|
Di Toma P.
|
2012
|
3
|
4
|
0.33
|
|
26
|
Di Toma P.
|
2020
|
1
|
1
|
0.25
|
|
27
|
González M.
|
2021
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
27
|
Guzmán A.
|
2021
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
27
|
Li W.
|
2016
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
27
|
Trujillo M. A.
|
2021
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Abbreviations: TP = total papers; TC = total cites; TC/TP = ratio of citations divided by papers.
|
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
Minichilli is at the vanguard of our analysis, with a prolific production in 2016 garnering a remarkable 280 citations, resulting in an excellent TC/TP ratio of 35 (Minichilli et al., 2016). This places Minichilli at the top of the dataset’s effect hierarchy. Kellermanns and Guzmán share third place with a noteworthy TC/TP ratio of 12.44 in 2015. This convergence in rankings highlights the significance of 2015 as a watershed year for significant scientific contributions from several authors. Interestingly, Guzmán also maintains a steady presence in subsequent years, showing continued output and impact. Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the importance of specific years, such as 2020, where authors such as Al-Okaily and González attained excellent TC/TP ratios of 7 and 6.5, respectively. In contrast, certain authors had fewer citations in the most recent publications, as is the case of González, Guzmán, Li, and Trujillo in 2021.
As one delves further into the data, different patterns of authorship emerge, providing a more nuanced picture of scholarly effect. Kellermanns’ influence spans several years, with major peaks in 2012 and 2015, demonstrating long-term productivity and adaptability. Minichilli’s exclusive concentration in 2016 resulted in an exceptional TC/TP ratio, indicating the value of the contribution made to the literature and the influence of his research. Guzmán emerges as a consistent contributor, first appearing significantly in 2015 and continuing to be relevant in later years, also demonstrating the endurance of impactful research initiatives. Also worth highlighting is the influence of Al-Okaily’s work in 2020, which reached a TC/TP ratio of 7. The varying performance of Bodolica over time raises intriguing issues regarding the conceptual progression of their work and its resonance within the scholarly community. Similarly, Spraggon’s constant presence, notably between 2015 and 2020, suggests a prospective study path worth exploring.
The variation in TC/TP ratios across authors and years demonstrates the complex dynamics of scholarly impact. While Minichilli and Kellermanns have a continuously high impact, others fluctuate, demonstrating the diverse character of academic contributions. This approach not only provides a snapshot of individual author trajectories, but it also encourages investigations into the contextual factors determining their various levels of impact, laying the groundwork for future research into the changing landscape of scholarly productivity.
Authors such as Li, González, Guzmán, and Trujillo published little or nothing on the topic between 2016 and 2021, indicating periods of relative inactivity or a change in research focus and interest. The flow of publications and authors’ impact reveal the intricate interaction of individual efforts, theme shifts, and external factors that define the dynamic terrain of academic contributions.
4.2.4. The most influential countries
Table 4 shows the diverse international landscape of scholarly involvement in the study of corporate governance in family firms by looking at the countries that have made significant contributions to this field. As evidenced by its impressive publication count of 185, the United States is consistently recognized as a leading contributor in the field of corporate governance within family firms. China demonstrates a strong adherence to this trend by producing 173 papers, emphasizing the increasing significance of the topic in one of the globe’s major economies. Family firms provide a substantial component within the corporate framework of China, with a substantial trend towards examining corporate governance matters that are distinctive to family firms.
It is also worth highlighting the importance of the research on corporate governance in family businesses carried out in Italy, occupying third place with 161 publications. Malaysia and Spain are positioned within the top five, with 126 and 125 papers, respectively. As evidenced, academic interest in the topic of corporate governance in family businesses is global, with researchers from many countries working to improve the existing knowledge base in the field.
Table 4. The most influential countries
|
Region
|
Frequency
|
Region
|
Frequency
|
Region
|
Frequency
|
|
USA
|
185
|
Singapore
|
15
|
Philippines
|
3
|
|
China
|
173
|
Turkey
|
14
|
Thailand
|
3
|
|
Italy
|
161
|
Finland
|
13
|
Bahrain
|
2
|
|
Malaysia
|
126
|
Switzerland
|
12
|
Czech Republic
|
2
|
|
Spain
|
125
|
Netherlands
|
9
|
Egypt
|
2
|
|
Germany
|
75
|
Japan
|
7
|
Ghana
|
2
|
|
UK
|
70
|
Austria
|
6
|
Jordan
|
2
|
|
India
|
52
|
Bangladesh
|
6
|
Mali
|
2
|
|
Australia
|
50
|
Denmark
|
6
|
Monaco
|
2
|
|
Canada
|
48
|
Greece
|
6
|
Morocco
|
2
|
|
France
|
37
|
Mexico
|
6
|
Nicaragua
|
2
|
|
Colombia
|
36
|
Norway
|
6
|
Qatar
|
2
|
|
Portugal
|
34
|
Brazil
|
5
|
Saint Lucia
|
2
|
|
Sweden
|
32
|
Poland
|
5
|
Vietnam
|
2
|
|
Indonesia
|
31
|
Argentina
|
4
|
Hungary
|
1
|
|
Lebanon
|
24
|
Saudi Arabia
|
4
|
Ireland
|
1
|
|
South Korea
|
22
|
Brunei
|
3
|
Libya
|
1
|
|
Belgium
|
19
|
Cyprus
|
3
|
Nepal
|
1
|
|
Chile
|
18
|
Israel
|
3
|
Somalia
|
1
|
|
Tunisia
|
17
|
Luxembourg
|
3
|
South Africa
|
1
|
|
New Zealand
|
15
|
Oman
|
3
|
|
|
|
Pakistan
|
15
|
Peru
|
3
|
|
|
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
4.3. Collaboration network
Table 5 shows a network of authors. The Cluster column indicates 13 clusters in the network and the main connections of each cluster. The size and connectivity of the clusters are not expressly displayed in the data but can be inferred from network centrality measures such as betweenness, closeness, and PageRank.
Betweenness centrality assesses an individual’s importance in connecting various network nodes. Authors with high betweenness centrality scores are frequently referred to as “brokers” or “gatekeepers” due to their strategic position in the network, which allows them to control the flow of information or resources between various parts of the network. Kellermanns and Carney have the highest betweenness centrality scores (2) in this data set, indicating that they are significant network brokers. Minichilli and the individuals in Cluster 3 have comparable centrality values.
Table 5. Collaboration by authors
|
Node
|
Cluster
|
Betweenness
|
Closeness
|
PageRank
|
|
Kellermanns F.
|
1
|
2
|
0.25
|
0.04
|
|
Carney M.
|
1
|
2
|
0.25
|
0.02
|
|
Hack A.
|
1
|
0
|
0.17
|
0.03
|
|
Duran P.
|
1
|
0
|
0.17
|
0.017
|
|
Bodolica V.
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Spraggon M.
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Minichilli A.
|
3
|
2
|
0.33
|
0.04
|
|
Calabrò A.
|
3
|
0
|
0.2
|
0.01
|
|
Cambrea D.R.
|
3
|
0
|
0.25
|
0.02
|
|
Pittino D.
|
3
|
0
|
0.25
|
0.03
|
|
Li W.
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Gao W.
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Jiang Y.
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Peng Mw
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Brahmana R.
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Puah C. H.
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Di Toma P.
|
7
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Montanari S.
|
7
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Brower J.
|
8
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Kashmiri S.
|
8
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Yeh Y. H.
|
9
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Liao C. C.
|
9
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Guzmán A.
|
10
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
González M.
|
10
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
Trujillo M. A.
|
10
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
Sacristán-Navarro M.
|
11
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
Cabeza-García L.
|
11
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
Gómez-Ansón S.
|
11
|
0
|
0.5
|
0.03
|
|
Al-Okaily J.
|
12
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Chahine S.
|
12
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Amore M. D.
|
13
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
|
Miller D.
|
13
|
0
|
1
|
0.03
|
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
Closeness centrality measures how rapidly a node can communicate with all other nodes in a network. Individuals with high closeness centrality scores are frequently considered “central” in a network because they are readily accessible to others and can rapidly disseminate information or resources throughout the network. Bodolica and Spraggon have the highest closeness centrality scores (1), indicating that they are central nodes in the network. Additionally, Kellermanns, Carney, Duran, and Calabrò have relatively high scores for closeness and centrality. PageRank assesses the significance of an individual based on the number and significance of their connections to other individuals. Individuals with a high PageRank score are frequently regarded as “influential” in the network due to their extensive number of high-quality connections. Kellermanns has the highest PageRank score (0.0456), meaning they are the most influential people in the network. Minichilli, Guzmán, and Sacristán-Navarro are a few additional people with relatively high PageRank scores.
4.4. The intellectual structure of research
It is feasible to undertake an analysis to show the most influential articles in the field of corporate governance in family firms (see Figure 5). The overall number of citations that these publications have received, the number of citations that they have received in a single year, and their normalized citations can be used to evaluate the influence that these works have had. The total citation (TC) per year metric quantifies the average frequency with which a research article has been referenced in subsequent years after its initial publication. The research paper written by Gomez-Mejia et al (2011) has the highest number of citations, which is 1,232. This total of citations (TC) suggests that the paper has continually garnered citations since its first publication. The computation of the normalized TC measure entails the division of the TC per-year value by the mean citation rate of all articles published within the corresponding year.
The paper authored by Ali et al. (2007) has a more pronounced citation impact compared to other papers released within the same year. In contrast to the remaining works, the citation metrics of the paper of Anderson and Reeb (2003), exhibit a notable decrease in the last years. This may be attributed to the age of the paper or the interest of the topic, which could have been superseded.
Figure 5. The most cited documents
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
Also, highlight the citation metrics of the articles written by Lubatkin et al. (2005) and Maury (2006). These works have contributed to a certain extent to the advancement of their disciplines, although their impact is not as great as that of the publications indicated previously. The papers written by Barontini and Caprio (2006) and Fernandez and Fogli (2006) have similarities in their citation metrics, although the latter study has a higher normalized TC metric, suggesting a higher influence in the year of publication of the study.
The article by Chen and Hsu (2009) should also be highlighted, which continues to accumulate citations since its publication. This may be the case due to its applicability to currently active research projects or its ability to close a knowledge gap.
4.5. The most popular themes
4.5.1. Co-occurrence networks
The dataset is presented in the form of a co-occurrence network, in which each node represents a concept and the edge between any two nodes shows the frequency with which those concepts co-occur in a certain setting. As Figure 6 shows, three key nodes have a major influence on connecting the networks. They are corporate strategy (red color), corporate governance (blue color) and firm ownership (green color). Corporate strategy serves as a very significant intermediary in the exchange of information or influence between other small nodes in the network (15), such as governance approach, industrial performance, Italy, industrial structure, ownership, small and medium-sized enterprises, empirical analysis, industrial enterprise, strategic approach, sustainability, competitiveness, economic history, and investment. Corporate governance serves as link between 12 nodes in the network, such as family firms, industrial management, management, decision-making, family firms, finance, principal agencies, shareholders, Chinese families, commerce, emerging economies, and industry. Firm ownership, although its betweenness centrality value is lower than the other two nodes, has also a significant role in connecting other nodes in the network. It serves as link that facilitates the interaction between six nodes, such as family structure, agency theory, performance assessment, family governance, heterogeneity, and intergenerational transfer.
There are other residual nodes outside the three key nodes such as industrial practice, competition, employee, human, board independence, corporations, economic growth, and innovation.
Figure 6. Co-occurrence networks
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
4.5.2. Thematic map
Figure 7 shows four thematic quadrants that emerge from the analysis according to the density and relevance of the themes. The analysis is performed semi-automatically by examining the titles of all references and keywords.
The theme of the upper right quadrant is dense and significant. The themes that are driving forces are presented there. It includes themes of innovation, economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the generic themes of corporate governance and family firm. The thematic quadrant in the upper left shows themes that are still poorly developed, but that can be considered topics of interest for future research. It includes sustainability, corporate social responsibility, among other themes. Several topics that have occupied the bottom left position for a long period have experienced a downward trend characterized by low centrality. These are issues linked to employees and human capital. A second group of themes related to capitalism and Eurasia also appears in this quadrant. Finally, in the lower right part, there are fundamental topics in the field of corporate governance in the company, which have high centrality but low density. Business ownership, family structure and management are essential research questions, used as general topics.
The motif contained within the upper-right quadrant is dense and significant. Consequently, future studies must further deepen and investigate this issue. This quadrant contains the themes of innovation, economic growth, and competitiveness. In contrast, the theme quadrant at the upper left displays uncommon topics that are highly developed. This quadrant’s themes include sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and Switzerland. These motifs are dense but of relatively low significance.
Next, a number of topics that have occupied the bottom left position for an extended period of time have undergone a declining trend characterized by low centrality. In this section, it is evident that the first cluster contains fewer references to employees, humans, and monitoring. In contrast, the second cluster contains subjects related to capitalism and Eurasia. Next, at the bottom right, are fundamental issues with high centrality but low density. In the first cluster, firm ownership, family structure, and management are essential research issues since they are often used as general topics. Basic topics related to strategy are also included, including corporate strategy, governance approaches or business performance.
4.6. Conceptual structure map
The conceptual structure of corporate governance in family firm research between 1998 and 2022 is reflected in the bibliometric map shown in Figure 8. Factorial analysis provides insight into the relationships between keywords. This analysis allows showing a two-dimensional graph that uses the distance to reflect the similarity between the keywords. The objective of the analysis is to identify and search for similarities or dissimilarities between terms, which allows their categorization based on shared characteristics. The results indicate that a significant proportion of terms is concentrated within group 1, while group 2 exhibits a comparatively smaller number of terms. This suggests that keywords in cluster 1 exhibit a high degree of similarity, whereas keywords in cluster 2 demonstrate a greater level of dissimilarity. The dimension 1 (Dim 1) encompasses various aspects of corporate management and governance, such as corporate strategy, governance methodology, corporate governance, family firms, firm ownership, management, family structure, performance, firm size, structure, ownership, small and medium-sized enterprises, strategic approach, and vulnerability, among others. The dimension 2 (Dim 2) includes terms such as family governance, heterogeneity, agency theory, empirical analysis, etc. The factorial analysis may help researchers in gaining a deeper understanding of the key factors and concepts in the field of corporate governance in family firms.
Figure 7. Thematic map
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
5. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research
5.1. Conclusions
The current study, building upon and extending the findings of previous research, introduces several novel insights and divergent observations in the field of corporate governance in family firms. In light of these findings, several implications and future research directions arise.
Identifying influential affiliations and prolific authors can foster research collaborations and knowledge sharing within the field, promoting interdisciplinary perspectives (Bargoni et al., 2023; Boukhabza & Ouhadi, 2023) that can help to increase the quality of publications (Chen & Liu, 2023; Nautiyal & Pathak, 2023). Given the international significance of corporate governance in family firms, encouraging collaboration among researchers from different countries can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of this subject (Enciso-Alfaro & García-Sánchez, 2023). Moreover, recognizing influential authors such as Kellermanns, Minichilli, Guzmán, or Sacristán-Navarro, among others, can guide collaborative efforts for impactful research (Eddleston et al., 2018; Guzmán, 1997; Kellermanns et al., 2008; Minichilli et al., 2016; Sacristán-Navarro et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2023). The observation of international collaborations underscores the global relevance of corporate governance in family firms and the potential for cross-cultural insights (Kessler & Zipper-Weber, 2023). Further exploration of collaboration dynamics, including the nature and outcomes of collaborations between influential individuals, as well as an investigation into the factors driving international collaborations and their impact on the field, should be pursued (Daradkeh, 2023; Tarba et al., 2023). Lastly, continuous monitoring and analysis of collaboration trends are essential to identify shifts and emerging patterns in the field (Georgiou et al., 2023).
Figure 8. Conceptual structure map
Source: Biblioshiny using Scopus database
5.2. Implications
The implications of this research hold significant relevance for both researchers and practitioners. The encouragement of collaboration among researchers from different countries is underscored as crucial for achieving a comprehensive understanding of the research field, highlighting its potential for generating valuable cross-cultural insights (Enciso-Alfaro & García-Sánchez, 2023). The recognition of international collaborations emphasizes the need for further exploration into collaboration dynamics (Kessler & Zipper-Weber, 2023).
At a practical level, this study delves into variations in author productivity and geographic contributions. The analysis illustrates the diversity of contributions from the United States, China, Italy, Malaysia, and Spain, among others, emphasizing the global relevance and scholarly interest in corporate governance in family firms over time. The practical contribution lies in offering practical knowledge for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, helping in the strategy development and strategic decision-making.
5.3. Limitations
It is imperative to acknowledge the inherent limitations of this analysis. One notable constraint stems from the reliance on data sourced exclusively from the Scopus database. This approach may introduce a potential bias, as non-indexed publications or those in languages other than English might be inadvertently overlooked. Furthermore, while citation counts serve as a conventional metric for research impact, they may not holistically encapsulate research quality. As emphasized by Che-Hassan et al. (2023) and She et al. (2023), considerations of factors such as practical relevance to practitioners are crucial.
The temporal scope of the analysis, encompassing publications from 1998 to 2022, presents another limitation. This timeframe may result in overlooking recent developments within the field of corporate governance in family firms. Additionally, the analysis may not fully capture collaboration networks and partnerships that exist beyond the confines of the dataset, as highlighted by Martinez-Alonso et al. (2022). Despite employing network centrality measures to glean insights into collaboration dynamics, it is essential to acknowledge that these metrics may fall short of capturing the complete complexity of relationships and collaborations, as posited by Santos et al. (2023). Furthermore, the use of the term “family firm” in the research query might introduce a degree of narrowness. Future research endeavors could benefit from employing broader terms such as “family business” or “family-owned enterprise” to ensure a more comprehensive exploration of the subject matter.
5.4. Future research agenda
Recognizing the limitations of this analysis, future research should consider several avenues. Diversification of data sources is crucial, involving exploration beyond the Scopus database to include non-indexed publications and documents in languages other than English. Moving beyond traditional citation counts, the development of alternative metrics or methodologies to assess research quality is recommended. This entails taking into account factors that are practically relevant to practitioners, guaranteeing a comprehensive assessment of the actual impact of research in this field.
Moreover, it is imperative to broaden the chronological scope of analyses in order to incorporate contemporary advancements in the discipline. Research that allows us to go into cooperation networks is also recommended. It is essential to use qualitative aspects to examine recent developments, conduct comparative studies, and explore interdisciplinary approaches (Minichilli et al., 2010; Pandey et al., 2023; Ramos Cordeiro et al., 2023).
Qualitative dimensions may not be fully captured by quantitative metrics. Therefore, a more holistic understanding of collaboration dynamics is needed. Lastly, terminological expansion in research queries is vital to ensure a more inclusive exploration of the multifaceted nature of corporate governance within familial structures. Finally, these directions aim to overcome limitations and contribute to a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of corporate governance in family firms. Embracing diverse methodologies, data sources, and terminologies will guide the ongoing evolution of research in this dynamic domain.
References
Abdelaziz, S. A. (2021). The importance of the governance role in achieving stability and sustainability in family business companies through generations. Business and Management Studies, 7(3), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v7i3.5300
Ahmed, S., & Uddin, S. (2022). Reflexive deliberations of family directors on corporate board reforms: publicly listed family firms in an emerging economy. Accounting Forum, 1-31, https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2022.2091728.
Ali, A., Chen, T. Y., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2007). Corporate disclosures by family firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44(1-2), 238-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.01.006
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301-1328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00567
Andersson, F. W., Johansson, D., Karlsson, J., Lodefalk, M., & Poldahl, A. (2018). The characteristics of family firms : exploiting information on ownership, kinship, and governance using total population data. Small Business Economics, 51, 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9947-6
Aparicio, G., & Iturralde, T. (2023). New Research trends in sustainability in family businesses: A bibliometric literature review. European Journal of Family Business, 13(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfbejfb.v13i1.16744
Azila-Gbettor, E. M., Honyenuga, B. Q., Berent-Braun, M. M., & Kil, A. (2018). Structural aspects of corporate governance and family firm performance: a systematic review, Journal of Family Business Management, 8(3), 306-330. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-12-2017-0045
Bargoni, A., Alon, I., & Ferraris, A. (2023). A systematic review of family business and consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113698
Barontini, R., & Caprio, L. (2006). The effect of family control on firm value and performance: Evidence from continental Europe. European Financial Management, 12(5), 689-723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2006.00273.x
Boukhabza, S., & Ouhadi, S. (2023). Women in family business succession: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00366-0
Brito-Ochoa, M. P., Sacristán-Navarro, M. A., & Pelechano-Barahona, E. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of dynamic capacities in the field of family firms (2009-2019). European Journal of Family Business, 10(2), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfbejfb. v10i2.10162
Buckman, J., Jones, P., & Buame, S. (2020). Passing on the baton: A succession planning framework for family-owned businesses in Ghana. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-11-2018-0124
Calabrò, A., Chrisman, J. J., & Kano, L. (2022). Family-owned multinational enterprises in the post-pandemic global economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(5), 920-935. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00508-8
Carmeli, A., & Markman, G. D. (2011). Capture, governance, and resilience: Strategy implications from the history of Rome. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 322-341. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.880
Casado-Belmonte, M. P., Capobianco-Uriarte, M. M., Martínez-Alonso, R., & Martínez-Romero, M. J. (2021). Delineating the path of family firm innovation: mapping the scientific structure. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 2455–2499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00442-3
Casprini, E., Dabic, M., Kotlar, J., & Pucci, T. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of family firm internationalization research: Current themes, theoretical roots, and ways forward. International Business Review, 29(5), 101715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101715
Che-Hassan, N., Abdul-Rahman, A., Mohd Amin, S. I., & Ab Hamid, S. N. (2023). Investment intention and decision making: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Sustainability, 15(5), 3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053949
Chen, C., & Liu, W. (2023). Advances and future trends in research on carbon emissions reduction in China from the perspective of bibliometrics. PloS one, 18(7), e0288661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288661
Chen, H. L., & Hsu, W. T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22(4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509341062
Chirapanda, S. (2020). Identification of success factors for sustainability in family businesses: Case study method and exploratory research in Japan. Journal of Family Business Management, 10(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2019-0030
Chirico, F., Salvato, C., Byrne, B., Akhter, N., & Arriaga Muzquiz, J. (2018). Commitment escalation to a failing family business. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3), 494-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12316
Cirpan, H., & Alayoglu, N. (2018). Challenges of Turkish family businesses related to effective management strategies. In: Aysan A., Babacan M., Gur N., & Karahan H. (Eds.) Turkish Economy, 385-409. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70380-0_17
Cristiano, E. (2018). Internationalisation and corporate governance in family businesses: a case study, International Journal of Business Performance Management, 19(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2018.088489
Daradkeh, M. (2023). Navigating the complexity of entrepreneurial ethics: a systematic review and future research agenda. Sustainability, 15(14), 11099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411099
De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A., & Piscitello, A. (2018). Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1199
Debellis, F., Pinelli, M., Hülsbeck, M., & Heider, A. (2023). Ownership, governance, and internationalization in family firms: a replication and extension. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00736-8
Dixit, J., Singh, P., & Soni, R. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of takeover in family firms: Current themes and prospects. Business Perspectives and Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/22785337221149830
Do Nascimento João, B., De Souza Santos, T. B., & Cunha Filho, W. G. (2014). Research in corporate governance & family firms: A research agenda. Revista Organizações em Contexto, 10(19), 131-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.15603/1982-8756/roc.v10n19p131-153
El Masri, T., Tekathen, M., Magnan, M., & Boulianne, E. (2017). Calibrating management control technologies and the dual identity of family firms. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(2), 157-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-05-2016-0038
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Kidwell, R. E. (2018). Managing family members: how monitoring and collaboration affect extra‐role behavior in family firms. Human Resource Management, 57(5), 957-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21825
Enciso‐Alfaro, S. Y., & García‐Sánchez, I. M. (2023). Corporate governance and environmental sustainability: Addressing the dual theme from a bibliometric approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1025-1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2403
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132-1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008
Fernandez, R., & Fogli, A. (2006). Fertility: The role of culture and family experience. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(2-3), 552-561. https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2006.4.2-3.552
Galavotti, I., & D’Este, C. (2023). The corporate governance-diversification link: exploring the heterogeneity of family firms. Corporate Governance, 23(3), 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2022-0043
Georgiou, T., Papasolomou, I., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2023). Market-oriented succession effectiveness in family business – Case-based evidence from Cyprus family-owned wine business. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114050
Ghafoor, S., Zulfiqar, M., Wang, M., Wang, C., & Islam, M. R. (2023). Behavioural phenomena of family firm control diversity and R&D investment with moderating role CEO compensation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 397-417. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S383279
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.593320
Guzmán, N. (1997). Leadership for successful inclusive schools: A study of principal behaviours. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 439-450. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239710184583
Islas-Moreno, A., Muñoz-Rodríguez, M., Santoyo-Cortés, V. H., Martínez-González, E. G., Aguilar-Gallego, N., & Morris, W. (2022). The role of conflict in the adoption of governance practices in family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 12(4), 959-980. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-03-2021-0019
Jabali, K. A., Ashiq, M., Ahmad, S., & Rehman, S. U (2020). A Bibliometric analysis of research productivity on diabetes modeling and artificial pancreas 2001 to 2020. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 4305. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4305
Karam, P. B. S., Filho, C. A. P. M., & Abib, G. (2019). Conflicts in boards of family firms : a theoretical framework for strategic decision-making. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(6), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190083
Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Pearson, A. W., & Spencer, B. (2008). The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.497
Kessler, A., & Zipper-Weber, V. (2023). Born-again global internationalization in family businesses as a process: a dynamic capabilities perspective in the context of socioemotional wealth. Journal of Family Business Management, 13(4), 1366-1391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2023-0005
Kraus, S., Li, H., Kang, Q., Westhead, P., & Tiberius, V. (2020). The sharing economy: a bibliometric analysis of the state-of-the-art. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(8), 1769-1786. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2020-0438
LeCounte, J. F. (2022). Founder-CEOs: Succession planning for the success, growth, and legacy of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(3), 616-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1725814
Li, H., Kang, Q., Calabrò, A., Kraus, S., & Jones, P. (2023). International entrepreneurship: Analysing the current state of research. European Journal of International Management, 21(1), 96-120. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2023.132821
López‐Fernández, M. C., Serrano‐Bedia, A. M., & Pérez‐Pérez, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161
Lubatkin, M. H., Schulze, W. S., Ling, Y., & Dino, R. N. (2005). The effects of parental altruism on the governance of family‐managed firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 313-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.307
Mansour, A. Z., Ahmi, A., Popoola, O. M. J., & Znaimat, A. (2022). Discovering the global landscape of fraud detection studies: a bibliometric review. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(2), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-03-2021-0052
Martínez-Alonso, R., Martínez-Romero, M. J., & Rojo-Ramírez, A. A. (2022). Heterogeneous collaborative networks and firm performance: Do the contingent effects of family management and intellectual property rights matter? Baltic Journal of Management, 17(3), 356-374. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2021-0354
Maury, B. (2006). Family ownership and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Western European corporations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(2), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2005.02.002
Minichilli, A., Brogi, M., & Calabrò, A. (2016). Weathering the storm: Family ownership, governance, and performance through the financial and economic crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(6), 552-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12125
Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Top management teams in family‐controlled companies: ‘familiness’, ‘faultlines’, and their impact on financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00888.x
Moghaddam, K., Judge, W. Q., Lewellyn, K. B., & Askarzadeh, F. (2023). Corporate governance in immigrant-founded entrepreneurial firms: ownership heterogeneity and firm performance. Venture Capital, 25(2), 161-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2023.2177208
Nautiyal, S., & Pathak, P. (2023). Resilience through the lens of entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis and network mapping of the emerging research field. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2022-3540
Ng, H. C., Tan, J. D., Sugiarto, S., Widjaja, A. W., & Pramono, R. (2021). Too big to fail : succession challenge in large family businesses. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(1), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.199
Nowacka, A., & Rzemieniak, M. (2022). The impact of the VUCA environment on the eigital competences of managers in the power industry, Energies, 15, 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010185
Pandey, N., Andres, C., & Kumar, S. (2023). Mapping the corporate governance scholarship: Current state and future directions. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(1), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12444
Parada Balderrama, M. J. (2015). Developing governance structures in family firms: From adoption to institutionalization. Doctoral Dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, JIBS Dissertation Series No. 103. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org
Pu, Z., Xu, Z., Wang, X., & Skare, M. (2022). A systematic review of the literature and bibliometric analysis of governance of family firms. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(6), 1398–1424. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.18309
Ramos Cordeiro, E., Lermen, F. H., Mello, C. M., Ferraris, A., & Valaskova, K. (2023). Knowledge management in small and medium enterprises: a systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis, and research agenda. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0800
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312
Rustam, A. R., & Narsa, I. (2021). Good corporate governance: A case study of family business in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(5), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO5.0069
Sacristán-Navarro, M., Gómez-Ansón, S., & Cabeza-García, L. (2011). Family ownership and control, the presence of other large shareholders, and firm performance: Further evidence. Family Business Review, 24(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486510396705
Santos, B. S., Silva, I., & Costa, D. G. (2023). Symmetry in scientific collaboration networks: A study using temporal graph data science and scientometrics. Symmetry, 15(3), 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15030601
Santoso, A. S., Soh, P. H., Larso, D., & Chen, J. (2020). Strategic entrepreneurship in a VUCA environment: Perspectives from Asian emerging economies. International Journal Entrepreneurial Venturing, 12(4), 343-354.
Saraswati, S. R., & Darma, G. S. (2020). Revealing the third generation myth in family businesses. Journal Entrepreneur Dan Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.37715/jee.v9i1.1261
She, L., Waheed, H., Lim, W. M., & E-Vahdati, S. (2023). Young adults’ financial well-being: current insights and future directions. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 41(2), 333-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2022-0147
Sun, J., Pellegrini, M. M., Dabić, M., Wang, K., & Wang, C. (2023). Family ownership and control as drivers for environmental, social, and governance in family firms. Review of Managerial Science, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00631-2
Tamara, A. F., Maulidan, A. S., Alkatili, A. A., Musyaffa, F. L., Husniyah, N., Studi, P., Digital, B., & Indonesia, U. P. (2021). Design thinking as a strategy in facing VUCA. Indonesian Journal of Digital Business, 1(2), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijdb.v1i2.34553
Tarba, S. Y., Frynas, J. G., Liu, Y., Wood, G., Sarala, R. M., & Fainshmidt, S. (2023). Strategic agility in international business. Journal of World Business, 58(2), 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101411
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2020). Family ownership. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa007
Xi, J., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0286-z
Zakaria, R., Ahmi, A., Ahmad, A. H., & Othman, Z. (2021). Worldwide melatonin research: a bibliometric analysis of the published literature between 2015 and 2019. Chronobiology International, 38(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2020.1838534
Appendix. Top 75 relevant journals
|
Element
|
h_index
|
g_index
|
m_index
|
Total Citation
|
|
Family Business Review
|
70
|
115
|
3.5
|
13450
|
|
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice
|
43
|
69
|
2.15
|
7655
|
|
Journal of Family Business Strategy
|
40
|
64
|
2.86
|
4809
|
|
Journal of Family Business Management
|
21
|
28
|
1.61
|
1234
|
|
Journal of Business Research
|
19
|
36
|
1.16
|
1346
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
|
15
|
23
|
0.78
|
1192
|
|
Journal of Small Business Management
|
15
|
18
|
0.78
|
1023
|
|
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
|
13
|
23
|
0.72
|
560
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research
|
12
|
22
|
0.75
|
510
|
|
Small Business Economics
|
11
|
14
|
0.91
|
1141
|
|
Business History
|
10
|
15
|
0.67
|
243
|
|
Management Research
|
9
|
13
|
0.82
|
195
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurial and Small Business
|
8
|
9
|
0.4
|
392
|
|
Corporate Governance: An International Review
|
7
|
7
|
0.39
|
440
|
|
European Journal of Family Business
|
7
|
12
|
0.87
|
171
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing
|
7
|
12
|
0.5
|
228
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
|
7
|
11
|
0.41
|
169
|
|
Journal of Corporate Finance
|
7
|
9
|
0.41
|
1397
|
|
Journal of Management and Organization
|
7
|
8
|
0.43
|
379
|
|
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
|
6
|
7
|
0.43
|
704
|
|
European Management Journal
|
6
|
7
|
0.3
|
203
|
|
Human Resource Management Review
|
6
|
6
|
1
|
156
|
|
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
|
6
|
13
|
0.38
|
210
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management
|
6
|
8
|
0.43
|
93
|
|
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship
|
6
|
7
|
0.4
|
194
|
|
International Journal of Management Practice
|
6
|
8
|
0.37
|
78
|
|
International Small Business Journal
|
6
|
6
|
0.33
|
590
|
|
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship
|
6
|
7
|
0.37
|
330
|
|
Journal of Family and Economic Issues
|
6
|
8
|
0.33
|
148
|
|
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
|
6
|
9
|
0.37
|
116
|
|
Management Decision
|
6
|
8
|
0.33
|
195
|
|
Review of Managerial Science
|
6
|
9
|
1
|
173
|
|
Sustainability (Switzerland)
|
6
|
14
|
0.86
|
220
|
|
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
|
5
|
6
|
0.47
|
172
|
|
Business Strategy and The Environment
|
5
|
6
|
1
|
139
|
|
European Journal of International Management
|
5
|
10
|
0.5
|
142
|
|
International Journal of Wine Business Research
|
5
|
7
|
0.45
|
56
|
|
Journal of Management
|
5
|
5
|
0.47
|
779
|
|
Journal of Small Business Strategy
|
5
|
7
|
0.45
|
58
|
|
Management Research Review
|
5
|
7
|
0.36
|
74
|
|
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
|
5
|
5
|
0.38
|
343
|
|
Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración
|
4
|
6
|
0.5
|
58
|
|
Administrative Sciences
|
4
|
5
|
0.67
|
59
|
|
Baltic Journal of Management
|
4
|
7
|
0.22
|
109
|
|
Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies
|
4
|
5
|
0.33
|
34
|
|
Entrepreneurship Research Journal
|
4
|
4
|
0.57
|
20
|
|
European Management Review
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
59
|
|
Global Strategy Journal
|
4
|
4
|
0.67
|
341
|
|
International Business Review
|
4
|
5
|
0.44
|
199
|
|
International Journal of Globalization and Small Business
|
4
|
4
|
0.2
|
160
|
|
International Journal of Management Reviews
|
4
|
4
|
0.33
|
348
|
|
Journal of Business Strategy
|
4
|
7
|
0.36
|
56
|
|
Journal of International Entrepreneurship
|
4
|
5
|
0.31
|
96
|
|
Journal of Management And Governance
|
4
|
5
|
0.4
|
87
|
|
Journal of Management Control
|
4
|
4
|
0.67
|
44
|
|
Journal of Management Studies
|
4
|
5
|
1.33
|
102
|
|
Organization Science
|
4
|
4
|
0.33
|
913
|
|
Review of International Business and Strategy
|
4
|
4
|
0.57
|
64
|
|
Strategic Management Journal
|
4
|
4
|
0.28
|
421
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
|
4
|
7
|
0.5
|
112
|
|
Universia Business Review
|
4
|
6
|
0.30
|
45
|
|
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal
|
3
|
4
|
0.21
|
23
|
|
British Food Journal
|
3
|
3
|
0.37
|
203
|
|
Business Ethics
|
3
|
3
|
0.42
|
92
|
|
Business Horizons
|
3
|
3
|
0.27
|
87
|
|
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
|
3
|
3
|
0.37
|
43
|
|
Chinese Management Studies
|
3
|
4
|
0.37
|
29
|
|
Corporate Ownership and Control
|
3
|
4
|
0.17
|
28
|
|
Cross Cultural and Strategic Management
|
3
|
4
|
0.5
|
38
|
|
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review
|
3
|
6
|
0.42
|
43
|
|
Euromed Journal of Business
|
3
|
3
|
0.37
|
79
|
|
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
|
3
|
3
|
0.3
|
61
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
|
3
|
6
|
0.3
|
43
|
|
Futures
|
3
|
3
|
0.37
|
62
|
