1. Introduction

Today’s globalized economy forces local companies to compete with those from other countries. This creates increasing pressure to expand beyond national borders, achieve greater scale, and ensure long-term survival. Therefore, internationalization is a direct consequence of current globalization (Arafat et al., 2022). This process has accelerated changes in trade patterns between companies and between companies and their customers. Consequently, internationalization becomes a strategy for companies to grow and survive longer (Prashantham, 2005). These considerations are even more important for long-term, family-owned businesses (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006; Núñez-Cacho & Grande, 2013), compelling them to define their strategic priorities (Arrègle et al., 2021; Chrisman et al., 2013). We can therefore point out that internationalization is not only a growth strategy, but also a way to ensure continuity in the long term.

Research on family business has shown that family involvement in the firm influences family business internationalization strategies (Cano-Rubio et al., 2021; Rogoff & Heck, 2003) and gives rise to different motivations in the internationalization process than those of nonfamily firms (Fernández & Nieto, 2005; Zahra, 2003). A comparative analysis of family and nonfamily businesses reveals how the former are very long-term oriented (Díaz-Moriana et al., 2025; et al., 2018). However, sustainability and continuity over time often depend on the strategy of internationalization (Blanco-Mazagatos et al., 2024; Guiso et al., 2006), raising the question of whether the long-term orientation of family firms necessarily translates into effective internationalization. Such friction often leads to conflicting and inconsistent outcomes. Several studies find that family ownership is positively linked to internationalization (Kontinen & Ojala, 2010; Zahra, 2003). On the other hand, studies such as Kotlar & De Massis (2013) indicate that preserving control can limit internationalization, and other works show the relationship as an inverted U shape (Mitter et al., 2014). Therefore, instead of cumulative integration, the field has developed along parallel lines that frequently generate divergent predictions and contradictory evidence, hindering theoretical consolidation.

These frictions and inconsistencies, together with the rapid growth of publications on the internationalization of family businesses, especially in the 21st century (e.g., Acedo et al., 2006; Alayo et al., 2019; Alkaabi & Dixon, 2014; Arrègle et al., 2021; Bornhausen, 2022; Casillas et al., 2021; Paul & Rialp, 2020; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014), provide evidence of the maturity of the field of research and the need to identify the underlying structure of the knowledge of its existing intellectual development. In this sense, this study is guided by the following research questions: 1) How does family structure influence the internationalization trajectories of family businesses? 2) How has the intellectual structure of research on the internationalization of family businesses evolved during the first quarter of the 21st century, and what thematic areas have defined it? 3) Which authors, institutions, and countries, have played a significant role in shaping and advancing this field of research? 4) What recurring empirical contradictions and unresolved theoretical tensions characterize the literature, and how might they be reconciled through a more integrative explanatory framework?

To address these research questions, we employ a combined bibliometric and systematic literature review of research on the internationalization of family businesses between 2001 and 2025. Given the fragmented and rapidly expanding nature of the field, the proposed methodology is particularly suitable for identifying its intellectual structure, consolidating existing knowledge, and tracing the main research directions developed over time. Our results contextualize research in this field and, furthermore, allow us to develop an explanatory model of family influence on internationalization. We propose that the configuration of family governance generates the activation of a dominant strategic logic that will determine the type of international network it uses and defines its internationalization results.

This paper is organized as follows. The methodology used to achieve the research objectives is presented. Afterward, the results of the bibliometric and systematic analysis of the internationalization of family businesses in the period 2001–2025 are presented. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the findings obtained and the conclusions section, offering several avenues for future research and recognizing the limitations of the study.

2. Methods

2.1. Method and variables under study

This research work is based on the methodology of bibliometric analysis or scientometrics, which allows the identification, organization, extraction and analysis of scientific documents to examine the temporal evolution of a certain line of research (Aparicio & Iturralde, 2023; Cobo et al., 2011; Donthu et al., 2021; Hasanah et al., 2023) to obtain a general, broad and systematic review of the literature. In this way, indicators of scientific quality are identified, and current and future research topics and methodologies are established (Keathley-Herring et al., 2016; Zavaraqi & Fadaie, 2012), which also describes interest in the line of research (Gutiérrez-Salcedo et al., 2018). This methodology has been used to summarize, classify and obtain results from a set of selected papers and has been applied to the areas of management and family businesses in different works (Casillas & Acedo, 2007; Rovelli et al., 2022). In this sense, bibliometric indicators that describe the main elements used to identify and describe the most relevant research aspects, as well as the research trends, are established (Courtial, 1994; Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015; Ravikumar et al., 2015; Zupic & Čater, 2015). Additionally, network maps are generated, which have allowed us to group and process words via VOSviewer software, as has been used by numerous studies in various scientific fields (Belmonte-Ureña et al., 2021; García-Rivas et al., 2023; Mayes-Ramírez et al., 2023; Prados-Peña, et al., 2022; Rialp, et al., 2019; Sikandar et al., 2023).

2.2. Stages of bibliometric analysis and syste-matic review

The bibliometric analysis is performed in two phases (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Phases of the analysis methodology.

2.2.1. Selecting the database and defining the search criteria

We performed the search in Scopus database, using a structured query (see Figure 1) that provides the most information on authors, institutions and countries (Zhang & Eichmann-Kalwara, 2019), in addition to being the internationally recognized database with the largest volume of double-blind peer-reviewed scientific documents and journals, which is an indicator of higher scientific quality (Ackerson & Chapman, 2003; Smajić et al., 2023). We limited the results to 2001–2025 and to journal articles. Furthermore, it applies standardized indexing criteria that improve document comparability and offers broader coverage than other repositories (Archambault et al., 2009). In addition, it includes a considerable number of unique sources not indexed elsewhere (Falagas et al., 2008; Walters, 2017). The initial search yielded 548 documents. The extraction took place in March 2026. The articles were reviewed, and those that did not address the research topic or were not relevant to the subject were discarded. Thematic exclusion criteria were followed, excluding articles that, although they contain the keywords, did not address the central theme of the study. Areas of knowledge were also analysed, and irrelevant areas were discarded. After a temporal filter aligned with the study’s focus on 21st-century internationalization (2001–2025) was applied and after a review of the title, keywords, index, and abstract, 168 documents were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 380 articles for bibliometric and systematic analysis. To identify the field’s conceptual structure, we conducted a co-word analysis based on the authors’ keywords. Co-word analysis is appropriate for detecting thematic domains because it captures the concepts authors explicitly claim to be central, enabling the identification of research streams and their interconnections. The use of Scopus necessarily limits the scope of the review, as it does not fully encompass early foundational works, book chapters, certain regional journals, or publications in other languages. Citation indicators must also be interpreted with caution, especially for recent articles that have had limited time to generate impact. To address this limitation, the citation analysis was supplemented with keyword co-occurrence and thematic clustering. Consequently, this study maps the indexed core of research on the internationalization of family businesses over the past twenty-five years rather than reconstructing its entire historical evolution.

2.2.2 Data processing, systematization, and ana-lysis

Once the dataset was defined, we analysed the main bibliometric indicators to provide a quantitative overview of the field based on the information available in each article (Ahmad et al., 2020a; 2020b). In addition, we conducted a keyword analysis of the authors to identify co-occurrence patterns and reveal the conceptual and thematic structure of the domain (Kessler, 1963; Weinberg, 1974). This approach allows us to identify the dominant research trends and their evolution over time (Ding et al., 2001). Bibliometric maps were generated using VOSviewer.

3. Results

3.1. Key features of family business internationalization

This section presents the main characteristics of the line of research on family business internationalization. First, we analysed the evolution of the number of articles published throughout the first quarter of the current century. Sustained growth was observed during the 25-year period, with a slight decrease in the last two years (2024 and 2025). This research line has gained importance in the economic, political, and social spheres over time, generating greater interest within the academic community in explaining the key factors that drive their continuity, transformation, and value creation.

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the research on the internationalization of family businesses in the period 2001--2025 over five-year periods.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the selected papers

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

The information presented in the table is relevant since it shows that not only the number of studies but also the number of authors, institutions, countries, and journals increased, as did the citations that were received, which shows a significant increase in the attention given to family business internationalization. On the other hand, Table 2 shows the most relevant research articles, measured through the number of total citations.

Table 2. Top 10 most relevant research articles

Rank	Author(s)	Year	Title	Journal	Citations
1	Zahra, S.A.	2003	International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement	Journal of Business Venturing	704
2	Fernández, Z., & Nieto, M. J.	2005	Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family businesses: Several influential factors	Family Business Review	501
3	George, G., Wiklund, J., & Zahra, S. A.	2005	Ownership and the internationalization of small firms	Journal of Management	446
4	Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A.	2014	The Internationalization of Family Firms: A Critical Review and Integrative Model	Family Business Review	408
5	De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A. & Piscitello, L.	2018	Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes	Global Strategy Journal	364
6	Graves, C., & Thomas, J.	2008	Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence	Family Business Review	330
7	Kontinen, T. & Ojala, A.	2010	The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research	Journal of Family Business Strategy	293
8	Arrègle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A. & van Essen, M.	2017	Why Is Family Firms' Internationalization Unique? A Meta-Analysis	Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice	279
9	Arrègle, J., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A.	2012	Internationalization of Family-Controlled Firms: A Study of the Effects of External Involvement in Governance	Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice	274
10	Graves, C., & Thomas, J.	2006	Internationalization of Australian family businesses: A managerial capabilities perspective	Family Business Review	253

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

The most cited contributions reveal that the initial core of the field is based on the analysis of governance and ownership, particularly the balance between control and risk in internationalization. This suggests that internationalization has been viewed primarily as a governance problem (who controls the company and under what incentives) rather than as a capacity-building process. This helps explain why empirical results diverge when ownership is considered a direct predictor without specifying the strategic logic through which family influence operates. These studies focused on two main research topics: (a) family and nonfamily ownership influence in the internationalization process (Fernández & Nieto, 2005; Zahra, 2003) and (b) resources and capacities in the internationalization process (Graves & Thomas, 2008; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014).

3.2. Major scientific contributions and international cooperation networks

This section presents the results related to the scientific production of authors, institutions, and countries in line with research on the internationalization of family businesses. Table 3 shows the most productive authors (over a threshold of four articles published from 2001-2025), highlighting their nationalities, with all of them being of European origin and a high percentage being from southern Europe.

Table 3. Most productive authors

Authors	A	TC	TC/A	H index	First A	Last A
Calabrò, A.	21	1408	67	17	2009	2024
Kraus, S.	9	597	66,3	7	2014	2025
Majocchi, A.	9	1009	112,1	8	2013	2023
Cano-Rubio, M.	8	81	10,1	5	2011	2025
Fuentes-Lombardo, G.	8	81	10,1	5	2011	2025
Torchia, M.	7	215	30,7	5	2016	2024
Sanchez-Famoso, V.	7	57	8,1	4	2019	2025
Kano, L.	7	458	65,4	6	2018	2025
Kontinen, T.	7	630	90	6	2010	2022
Rienda-García, L.	7	252	36	5	2006	2023
Eddleston, K.A.	6	313	52,2	5	2018	2023
De Massis, A.	6	596	99,3	5	2013	2024
Pongelli, C.	6	212	35,3	6	2016	2023
Mondal, A.	5	190	38	3	2018	2025
Claver-Cortés, E.	5	233	46,6	4	2007	2020
(A): number of articles published (TC): total citations; (TC/A): average citations per article; H index: Hirsch index in the line of research. (First A): First article published; (Last A): last article published.

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

With 21 articles, Calabró is the most prolific researcher, with 1,408 total citations, an average of 67 citations per article, and the highest H-index (17) within the analysed group. His output in this area spans from 2009 to 2024, demonstrating a sustained trajectory over time. In terms of the average impact per article, Majocchi stands out, with 1,009 total citations, with 9 publications and the highest average in the group (112.1 citations per article), followed by Kontinen (90 citations per article) and De Massis (99.3 citations per article). Although Kraus also presents a significant output (9 articles and 597 citations), his average is 66.3 citations per article.

On the other hand, authors such as Cano-Rubio and Fuentes-Lombardo show similar productivity (8 articles each), although with a more moderate average impact (10.1 citations per article). Similarly, Sánchez-Famoso has seven publications, with an average of 8.1 citations per work. In contrast, Kano (65.4 citations per article) and Eddleston (52.2) demonstrate significant impacts, with fewer publications. With respect to their timeline, several authors have a long and established presence in the field, such as Claver-Cortés (2006–2020) and Rienda-García (2006–2023), whereas others show more recent but active output until 2025, such as Kraus, Sánchez-Famoso, Kano, and Mondal.

Overall, the data reflect a consolidated core of researchers with high productivity and impact, with Calabrò standing out in terms of both volume and H-index and Majocchi and De Massis in terms of average impact per publication.

Table 4 shows the most productive institutions with the highest productivity, highlighting the high percentage of institutions of European origin (80%).

Table 4. Most productive institutions

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

Table 5 presents the results of the ten most productive countries in terms of family business internationalization. Although countries of European origin predominate, greater diversity is appreciated with the appearance of American, Asian, and Oceanic countries. At the level of both institutions and countries, the most productive are developed countries. Spain is the country with the greatest number of universities in the top positions (3).

Table 5. Most productive countries

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

Finally, among the indicators of scientific productivity, the results of the 25 most productive journals in the line of research by impact are shown in Table 6. As with the remaining productivity indicators, most of the journals are of European origin, followed by American ones, which clearly indicates that the dissemination of research results is conducted through large international publishers. These journals published 189 of the 380 research articles on the subject, thus representing 49,7% of the total publications, clearly indicating that there is a wide range of journals that address the main challenges of internationalization.

Table 6. 25 most cited journals.

(A)(TC/A): average citations per article (Position) order by number of articles published.

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

3.3. Research topics in family business internationalization

This section presents the results obtained from the co-occurrence of keywords contained in the research documents published on the internationalization of family businesses between 2001 and 2025. A total of 921 keywords were found. After a minimum interaction of four relationships was selected, a total of forty-four keywords were obtained. We subsequently filtered out the keywords that were included in the search criteria, as well as those that were not related to our search, obtaining a total of twenty-seven keywords organized around seven clusters (Figure 2).

The figure shows four groups of keywords that appear together. These groups represent the most analysed themes in the line of research. A high degree of interrelation is observed among the keywords, indicating that, although up to seven groups are visually identifiable, these can be reduced to four. This second regrouping is based on the researchers’ criteria, considering the proximity between the terms and the coherence of the regrouping: (1) corporate governance: ownership, family participation, and succession; (2) strategic management and decision-making; (3) resources and capabilities; and (4) international networks. The most relevant findings from each of these groups are highlighted below.

Figure 2. Keyword network based on co-occurrence (2001–2025)

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

3.3.1. Corporate governance: Ownership, family participation, and succession

The first line of research identified in the analysis is related to corporate governance, with considerations around family ownership and generational issues, and its relationship with internationalization processes (Debellis et al., 2023). Representative keywords of these clusters include family ownership, corporate governance, succession, family involvement, board of directors, and control. First, regarding ownership, the findings to date have been mixed and inconclusive (Cuervo-Cazurra & Colpan, 2023). For example, Zhou et al. (2019) and Zahra (2003) report that there is a positive relationship between ownership and family participation in the probability of internationalization. However, Bannò & Trento (2016) and Yang et al. (2020) report that this relationship is negative and that when 100% of capital belongs to a family, there is a negative effect on the internationalization strategy of family businesses (Sciascia et al., 2012), which is in line with the contribution of Jin et al. (2021), highlighting that this has a negative impact, at least in the short term. However, Jin et al. (2021) reported that the reputation of family property positively influences the decision to internationalize. There are other variants, such as that of Liang et al. (2014), who find a relationship between family participation and internationalization in the form of an inverted U shape and that the relationship between internationalization and family ownership is U shaped. On the other hand, Memili et al. (2017) and Santulli et al. (2019) studied this relationship from the perspective of the socioemotional wealth model and reported a moderating effect in which an equitable distribution of ownership between family managers and nonfamily CEOs provides higher levels of success in internationalization processes. Finally, Majocchi et al. (2016) reported that the relationship between ownership and internationalization is mediated by the distance from the origin and destination markets.

Second, the other key issue is intergenerational succession and the new management structures resulting from succession processes. The internationalization strategies adopted by successive generations arise because of the underlying incumbent–successor relationship (Shi et al., 2019) and are determined by the strategic orientation of the succession (Stieg et al., 2017). However, even though success in internationalization is linked to the number of external directors (Singla & Veliyath, 2010), a balance must be sought since, after the generational change, the family businesses that remain under family control decrease their export activity compared with other companies in which family control is looser (Monreal-Pérez & Sánchez-Marín, 2017). Thus, the existence of young successors generates a mediating effect: the negative effect of family ownership improves for companies with external directors, and the negative effect of family ownership on internationalization is less pronounced for companies without young successors.

Additionally, the literature identifies various variables related to corporate governance that favour success in family business internationalization (Omri et al., 2023), such as having a reduced number of members on the board of directors and a low frequency of meetings (Chowdhury et al., 2025; Panicker & Upadhyayula, 2021; Sundaramurthy & Dean, 2008) or a high level of academic training, both in the current generation and in successive generations (Stieg et al., 2017).

3.3.2. Strategic management and decision-ma-king

The second line of research identified is related to strategy and decision-making for management and success in the internationalization process (Kampouri & Hajidimitriou, 2023). Representative keywords include socioemotional wealth, decision-making, risk, long-term orientation, and entrepreneurial orientation. In these cases, the socioemotional wealth model (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007) has been gradually applied to the study of the internationalization process of family businesses since it adequately explains the differences between family and nonfamily members in terms of their goals and motivations for internationalization (Haider et al., 2021; Terán-Yépez, 2024). Thus, the top managers of family businesses find language and religion to be psychological barriers that increase risk and negatively influence the internationalization process (Mensching et al., 2016). Long-term orientation, which has a positive effect on internationalization, is a characteristic of family businesses (Claver et al., 2007; 2008) since sustainable growth helps strengthen the business (Esbeith et al. 2021). In this sense, Banalieva and Eddleston (2011) reported that local orientation can be a profitable strategy, although international leadership is the best option for family businesses.

Finally, the entrepreneurial orientation of family businesses plays a fundamental role in their internationalization process, which is why previous studies have focused on evaluating its influence. Tung et al. (2014) were the first to identify this positive relationship; entrepreneurial orientation contributes to the development of the second family generation in the business and, therefore, to the long-term sustainability of the organization (Mazzelli et al., 2023). In addition, intergenerational family cohesion allows the development of next-generation entrepreneurial role identities (Canovi et al., 2022). However, entrepreneurial orientation does not depend solely on family managers, but must permeate senior management teams, resulting in a stronger positive relationship when these teams are diverse (Alayo et al., 2019). Consequently, strategic decisions determine the pace and speed of access to and establishment of new family structures in international markets (Kampouri & Hajidimitriou, 2025). Thus, variables such as psychic distance (Cesinger et al., 2014), the choice of entry methods and motivations in the internationalization process (Daszkiewicz, 2019; Moreno-Menéndez & Castiglioni, 2021) reduce the speed of internationalization compared with nonfamily companies. This is why a common characteristic of family businesses is that they start exporting activities in countries with low geographical and psychological distances, which progressively expand as they acquire resources and accumulate knowledge (Olivares-Mesa & Cabrera-Suarez, 2006). With respect to the forms of entry, joint ventures are usually avoided, except those created by other family businesses with which values of trust, loyalty and continuity are shared (Boyd et al., 2010; Fuentes-Lombardo & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010). On the other hand, variables such as strategic thinking and familiarity (Wach, 2015) and attitudes toward the internationalization of family owners contribute to a greater speed in the process of internationalization. However, the characteristics of the owners (sex, age, etc.) do not influence the speed of the internationalization process (Wach, 2017).

3.3.3. Resources and capacities

A third line of research identified a cluster around the Resource-based view developed by Barney (1991). The specialized literature has focused on analysing the influence of a wide variety of variables on family businesses’ internationalization. Representative keywords of this cluster include resources, capabilities, human capital, social capital, reputation, and innovation. Variables related to the knowledge resources of the different generations of family businesses are identified (Fang et al., 2018; Luong et al., 2024; Núñez-Cacho & Lorenzo-Gómez, 2020), as are the resources acquired through the market (Forcadell et al., 2018), and differences in behaviour and performance between family businesses and nonfamily members are observed (Chirico et al., 2021). In fact, evidence has shown that family businesses have especially valuable resources that increase the chances of success in the internationalization process, such as reputation (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), long-term orientation (Bika & Kalantaridis 2019; Zellweger et al., 2012), social capital (Bubolz, 2001; Kontinen & Ojala, 2011a), and human capital (Kidwell et al., 2020).

In terms of social capital, a series of factors differentiate family managers from nonfamily managers (Cano-Rubio et al., 2021). The former usually uses networks that cross the domains of the family and the company (Miller et al., 2013) and are perceived by interest groups as representatives of the company (Keen et al., 2024). This gives rise to the appearance of unique and close links (Berrone et al., 2012), creating an imperfectly imitable resource and, consequently, a potential source of competitive advantage (Pearson et al., 2008). However, as with human capital, social capital has two major drawbacks: it can hinder innovation and renewal (Berrone et al., 2012; Lorenzo et al., 2022), and it limits the ability to react in rapidly changing environments (Acquaah, 2012; Debellis et al., 2023).

Another relevant topic is related to human capital, with literature supporting the importance of family managers having early access to family businesses, since they are concerned with the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Miller et al., 2013), which tend to improve over time on the basis of experience in the position (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006), which allows the development of deeper and tacit knowledge, as well as specific skills that favour the creation of value for the company (Acquaah, 2012). However, this decision must be analysed in depth since it has drawbacks such as lower investment in the education and training of family managers (Bloom & Van Reenen, 2007) or talented nonfamily managers seeing their promotion limited and leaving the company (Bertrand & Schoar, 2006). Consequently, family businesses must strike a balance in the correct management of their resources and capabilities to maximize the chances of success during the internationalization process. In addition, technology and innovation must be considered in this global context as essential sources of growth and economic development, determining the nature of technological and commercial competition (de Campos et al., 2023).

3.3.4. International networks

The fourth line of research involves international networks. Representative keywords of this cluster include networks, international ties, cooperation, trust, knowledge, and international market opportunities. These networks are generated by family businesses to compensate for some of their shortcomings in the internationalization process (de Groote et al., 2023). They are based on the belief that international ties favour the generation of internationalization opportunities (Crick & Spence, 2005; Hadjikhani et al., 2005). The values of family businesses, such as coherence (Kontinen & Ojala, 2012), affinity and kinship are usually key in the configuration of networks (Arrègle et al., 2007). For this reason, in general, family businesses are reluctant to develop new networks (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007), prefer establishing solid links with business partners, clients and other family businesses (Pukall & Calabrò, 2014) and focus on these links in the long term (Eddleston et al., 2010).

In fact, networks are often used as tools for the dissemination of new opportunities (Burt, 2004; Chatterjee et al., 2023) and as a resource to improve the knowledge of international markets (Wright et al., 2005). According to Kontinen & Ojala (2011a), formal links play a key role in generating social capital that allows the success of operations abroad. With respect to the intensity of international collaboration and the multinational nature of family businesses, Cesinger et al. (2016) applied socioemotional wealth theory to the internationalization model of Johanson and Vahlne (2015), finding that the influence on internationalization is a mediating variable of knowledge of the international market. In this study, the intensity of the collaboration and the acquisition of knowledge in the international market were found to be positively moderated by the confidence of the network. In the high-tech sector, this causes family businesses to show a greater propensity for internationalization than nonfamily businesses (Piva et al, 2013). However, knowledge about the role and implications of networks in the family business internationalization process remains limited (Kontinen & Ojala, 2011b); thus, it is expected to become a key research topic in the coming years.

With respect to temporal evolution, the field clearly shifts, moving from the initial predominance of debates on ownership/governance (2001–2010) toward the analysis of strategic motives and considerations of socioemotional wealth (2011–2016). More recent studies (2017–2025) increasingly incorporate resource/capacity and network perspectives to explain the heterogeneity in the speed of internationalization, mode of entry, and geographic reach. Notably, this thematic diversification has not produced complete convergence; instead, governance, socioemotional wealth, resource-based value (RBV), and network flows often advance in parallel, generating conflicting predictions and contributing to persistent empirical inconsistency.

4. Discussion

From a temporal perspective, the internationalization of family businesses has been among the major research topics whose analysis has been delayed the most. The work of Chrisman et al. (2013) indicates that fewer than 3% of the studies reviewed on that date addressed internationalization. Furthermore, the analysis of Núñez-Cacho (2010) revealed that until 2009, it was only 2.45%. Therefore, in the 1990s, researchers rarely addressed this topic, and we identified only six research papers. In contrast, in the following twenty-one years, three hundred and sixty-seven publications appeared. There is a turning point in the publishing trend that began in 2013, when the number of articles on the topic and their citations increased significantly. The concerns of companies and academic institutions about this matter are already reflected. This derives from the globalization that the world economy has experienced at this time, which has forced most companies to undertake expansion processes based on new international markets. Family businesses have done the same in search of survival (Galvagno & Pisano, 2021; Plakoyiannaki et al., 2024).

Despite this quantitative development, there is no conceptual convergence or accumulation of lines of knowledge and research. The results are paradoxical; sometimes positive, and sometimes negative (Núñez-Cacho et al., 2026). The literature describes phenomena, but an accepted and integrative framework explaining the conditions under which family influence favours or restricts internationalization has not been developed (Yadollahi Farsi & Pourmesgari, 2024). The central variable of the study, family ownership, does not have a stable effect on internationalization and is conditioned by the theoretical framework adopted. The role of generations also follows a cumulative pattern, which varies from one publication to another. Generations are used more as a demographic variable, but their identity and professionalization have not been explored in depth (Ling et al., 2026).

The results of the bibliometric analysis reveal four clusters, dominant and partially disconnected research domains, within the study of the internationalization of family businesses: (1) corporate governance structures, (2) strategic decision-making and socioemotional wealth considerations, (3) resources and capabilities, and (4) international networks. Rather than treating these clusters as parallel thematic categories, this study attempts to integrate them into a unified and dynamic multilevel explanatory framework. We propose that these clusters represent sequential and causally interdependent levels within a single explanatory system.

4.1 A multilevel configuration-based perspective

At the structural level, the family governance configuration forms the basis of the model. It is one of the most relevant clusters identified in the study. This includes aspects such as ownership concentration, the generational stage, the degree of family participation in management, and the composition of the board of directors. Existing research has often treated these elements as direct predictors of internationalization outcomes (Fernández & Nieto, 2005; Zahra, 2003). However, the inconsistency of the empirical findings suggests that their influence is indirect and contingent. Building on the integrative framework established by Pukall & Calabró (2014), who combined socioemotional wealth considerations with the internationalization process perspective in their Integrative Theoretical Model for Family Firm Internationalization, this framework aims to advance the debate by introducing a multilevel contingent structure. Rather than revising their central arguments, this model incorporates a governance configuration and the activation of strategic logic to explain the heterogeneity in internationalization outcomes among family firms (Ling et al., 2026).

Therefore, we propose that family governance is not the ultimate determining factor in internationalization behaviour. Instead, it defines the importance of the socioemotional wealth and economic utility functions within the company. In terms of business strategy, governance structures shape decision-making criteria and determine which objectives are prioritized within the company (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Thus, they influence decisions by prioritizing either the preservation of control, the maintenance of identity, and the protection of legacy or, conversely, growth-oriented strategy, competitiveness, and resource exploitation.

When the socioemotional wealth approach prevails, the Preservation Logic predominates. Under this orientation, companies prioritize retaining control, mitigating risk, and ensuring continuity. Behavioural agency theory suggests that family directors may accept lower financial returns to preserve socioemotional wealth (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Therefore, internationalization is likely to follow gradual trajectories, which is consistent with incremental internationalization models. This favours entry methods with less commitment and a focus on markets perceived as close.

Conversely, when economic utility is prioritized, the logic of expansion emerges. Under this logic, internationalization is a mechanism for strategic growth rather than a threat to the family control of the company. This orientation drives growth, competitive positioning, and the strategic exploitation of a firm’s specific resources. From a resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Sirmon et al., 2008), family businesses can leverage unique sets of human, social, and reputational capital to expand internationally. Furthermore, agency theory suggests that concentrating ownership within the family can reduce principal–agent conflicts, enabling more effective international strategic action (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

This logical perspective aligns with the integrative model proposed by Pukall & Calabró (2014), reconciling the apparent contradiction between socioemotional wealth and agency- or resource-based explanations. Instead of viewing these theoretical perspectives as opposing, the model conceptualizes them as alternative, yet internally coherent, logics that can predominate in different governance configurations. It would be an integrative contingent model based on this dual logic.

4.2 Role of the international network structure

Networks can have a determining effect on the behaviour of family firms (Reiners & Kammerlander, 2024). The network structure not only conveys strategic intent but also conditions the effectiveness of implementing the dominant logic, which does not operate in isolation but is conditioned by the structure of the international networks in which the company operates. Its network-based internationalization perspectives emphasize the role of relational integration and the recognition of opportunities (Coviello & Munro, 1997). Companies operating under a preservation logic tend to rely more on closed networks based on trust and kinship ties, which aligns with research highlighting the importance of family social capital (Arrègle et al., 2007; Debellis et al., 2024).

In contrast, companies guided by an expansion logic strategically promote more heterogeneous international links. They thus form open networks that facilitate knowledge acquisition and the recombination of capabilities and enable accelerated entry into other international markets (Arrègle et al., 2007).

4.3 Outcomes of internationalization

Internationalization should not be considered a one-dimensional variable. Previous research suggests that it comprises different dimensions, such as the propensity to internationalize, speed of expansion, choice of entry mode, and geographic reach (Kontinen & Ojala, 2010; Mitter et al., 2014). Therefore, different governance configurations and strategic approaches are expected to generate distinct internationalization trajectories in each of these dimensions. This multidimensional perspective explains why previous studies have reached divergent conclusions by focusing on isolated internationalization indicators (Ling et al., 2026).

4.4 Resolving empirical inconsistencies

The developed theoretical framework explains the persistent contradictions observed in previous research. Thus, positive associations between family ownership and internationalization arise when concentrated control supports expansion-oriented strategies under professionalized governance (Zahra, 2003). On the other hand, negative associations emerge when the family concentration of ownership amplifies concerns stemming from socioemotional preservation (Fernández & Nieto, 2005). This limits risk-taking and interaction with the outside world. Curvilinear relationships, including U-shaped and inverted U-shaped effects (Mitter et al., 2014), reflect changes in the relative predominance of preservation and expansion logics as ownership levels change. Similarly, generational transitions can recalibrate the weighting of socioemotional and economic priorities, contributing to heterogeneous internationalization patterns (Debellis et al., 2024).

The model suggests that the opposing results are a manifestation of the underlying variation in the strategic utility configuration of each family firm. Therefore, the inconsistency in previous findings reflects theoretical under specification rather than empirical instability.

4.5 Dynamic feedback and governance reconfiguration

Finally, the model incorporates the outcomes of internationalization as a dynamic feedback loop that impacts governance structures over time. Research on the evolution of family businesses and transgenerational entrepreneurship suggests that strategic experience redefines governance arrangements and family priorities (Ling et al., 2026; Zellweger et al., 2012). Success in foreign markets can foster the professionalization and diversification of governance. Conversely, failure in these markets can reinforce conservative governance tendencies (Debellis et al., 2024).

This recursive mechanism introduces temporal dynamics into the internationalization of family businesses, transcending static and cross-sectional interpretations. Therefore, we can conclude that the internationalization of family businesses is not the static result of a decision but rather an evolutionary process with interactions between governance configuration, strategic orientation, network structure, and performance outcomes.

In the Multilevel Contingent Logic Framework, the configuration of the family activates a dominant strategic logic. This logic conditions both the network structure and the internationalization outcomes, as shown in Figure 3. Finally, the results of the company’s internationalization provide feedback to the governance configuration, introducing new dynamics for the internationalization of family businesses.

Figure 3. Multilevel Contingent Logic Framework of Family Firm Internationalization

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

5. Conclusions

This study provides an overview of the main characteristics of research on the internationalization of family businesses in the 21st century and serves as a reference for researchers seeking new avenues of inquiry. The analysis reveals that between 2013 and 2025, the field reached stability, with significant growth in publications but no complete theoretical convergence. Cluster analysis revealed four main areas of research: (1) corporate governance, family involvement, and succession; (2) strategic management and decision-making; (3) resources and capabilities linked to the resource-based view; and (4) networking, highlighting the importance of international connections in the expansion of family businesses.

This research has allowed us to develop a multilevel model that explains the internationalization of family businesses. We emphasize that the configuration of family governance, ownership, generation, family participation, and board composition does not directly determine the internationalization of family businesses but rather shapes a dominant strategic logic: a preservation logic, focused on maintaining control and reducing risks, or an expansion logic, oriented toward growth and international opportunities.

These logics influence both the type of international network that companies establish and the results of their internationalization. Companies guided by preservation logic tend to rely on closed, trust-based networks. On the other hand, those that rely on an expansion logic seek open and diverse networks. By understanding internationalization as a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing speed, scope, mode of entry, and intensity, the model helps explain why previous studies have yielded divergent results. Finally, the framework incorporates a dynamic feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the results obtained in international markets reconfigure family governance structures. Over time, internationalization becomes a dynamic rather than a static process.

5.1. Theoretical implications

By conceptualizing family influence as a contingent mechanism rather than a direct predictor, the Multilevel Contingent Logic Framework proposed here integrates socioemotional wealth (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007), agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), and network perspectives on internationalization (Johanson & Vahlne, 2015) into a coherent explanatory framework. In doing so, it shifts the debate about whether family involvement promotes or constrains internationalization to the conditions under which different strategic logics dominate and generate distinct internationalization trajectories. This integrative approach provides a structured basis for future empirical testing and contributes to theoretical consolidation in a field that has thus far exhibited conceptual fragmentation. In doing so, the framework reorganizes the field’s architecture rather than adding yet another explanatory variable.

5.2. Practical implications

Although the relationship between family ownership and internationalization is not clear, with the studies analysed presenting paradoxical results, we can highlight some factors that condition the decision-making of managers of family businesses. The reputation of the family business contributes to the success of internationalization processes. The equally distributed participation of the family in the company is also generally highlighted as positive, and the incorporation of an external CEO in these processes is appreciated as positive. Another key factor is succession, with the presence of young successors or external directors improving the influence of the family in the company. The long-term orientation and promotion of entrepreneurial strategies favour the development of internationalization processes. Additionally, the characteristics of the owners (sex, age, etc.) do not influence the speed of the internationalization process (Debellis et al., 2023; Wach, 2017). The main resources available to family businesses to perform these processes are their reputation and their long-term orientation toward social and human capital. Finally, it highlights the need for family business managers to participate and encourage the development of international networks, which will allow them to have greater knowledge of the scenarios and culture where they will operate.

5.3. Limitations and future research on family business internationalization

In this section, we highlight the limitations of this bibliometric review. This research relies on several assumptions about the quality of the analysis, although several authors have already pointed out its imperfect correlation (Holden et al., 2005). Another limitation is the potential error of considering an article to be of inferior quality simply because it is infrequently cited, as if the author chose a topic that has remained of little interest to colleagues for years after its publication.

Future research on the internationalization of family businesses should move toward a dynamic and comprehensive understanding of the field, addressing the identified conceptual gaps. Although previous studies have made relevant contributions, the predominance of governance/ownership and socioemotional wealth perspectives—often disconnected from resource, capability, and network approaches—has limited the development of explanatory mechanisms that link family influence to the diverse outcomes of internationalization. Furthermore, internationalization is still frequently treated as a one-dimensional phenomenon, overlooking variations in speed, mode of entry, scope, and feedback effects over time. To address these limitations, we present a future research agenda structured around four interrelated dimensions: governance configurations and generational dynamics; strategic motivations and decision-making processes; multidimensional resources, capabilities, and outcomes; and networks, modes of cooperation, and dynamic reconfiguration, as summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Future lines and research questions

Topic	Research Questions
1. Governance Configurations, Generational Dynamics, and Strategic Logic. Consider family ownership and participation as linear predictors and instead examine governance configurations as internally coherent structures.	How do intergenerational dynamics influence the activation of preservation or expansion logics?
	How does the transmission of family values influence international strategic decisions?
2. Strategic Motivations and Decision-Making Processes. The framework highlights the importance of the dominant strategic logic in shaping internationalization trajectories. Therefore, future studies should explore the motivations underlying internationalization.	Are the motivations of FB’s different from those of businesses with mixed or external ownership structures?
	How do SEW and economic objectives interact when family and nonfamily actors share control?
3. Resources, Capabilities, and Multidimensional Outcomes. Internationalization should be examined as a multidimensional construct, distinguishing between propensity, speed, mode of entry, and geographic reach. Beyond financial performance, future research should also assess nonfinancial outcomes.	What new organizational capabilities does the local structure acquire after internationalization?
	How do international experiences influence knowledge recombination and strategic flexibility?
4. Networks, Cooperative Modes, and Dynamic Reconfiguration. International networks should be conceptualized not only as contexts but also as conditioning mechanisms. Future research could explore how FB’s utilize cooperative entry modes, including alliances and partnerships, and how these modes align with the logics of preservation or expansion.	What motivates international actors to participate in cooperative networks with FB’s beyond purely financial considerations?
	How do these circular networks evolve over time, and how do they influence the reconfiguration of governance following international success or failure?

Author’s Contribution Statement

V. Moreno contributed to the introduction and the methodology and analysis section. A. Prados contributed to the methodology and results analysis. P. Núñez-Cacho contributed to the discussion and conclusions. H. Benghazi-Akhlaki contributed to the discussion, conclusions, and introduction.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Statement on the Use of Generative AI in the Writing Process

The authors did not use generative AI in the writing process.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor, Prof. Basco, for his valuable contributions to the reviews.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable

References

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co‐authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x

Ackerson, L. G., & Chapman, K. (2003). Identifying the role of multidisciplinary journals in scientific research. College & Research Libraries, 64(6), 468-478. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.6.468

Acquaah, M. (2012). Social networking relationships, firm‐specific managerial experience, and firm performance in a transition economy: A comparative analysis of family owned and nonfamily firms. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1215-1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1973

Ahmad, N., Aghdam, R. F., Butt, I., & Naveed, A. (2020a). Citation-based systematic literature review of energy-growth nexus: An overview of the field and content analysis of the top 50 influential papers. Energy Economics, 86, 104642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104642

Ahmad, N., Menegaki, A. N., & Al‐Muharrami, S. (2020b). Systematic literature review of tourism growth nexus: An overview of the literature and a content analysis of 100 most influential papers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(5), 1068-1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12386

Alayo, M., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., & Arzubiaga, U. (2019). Internationalization and entrepreneurial orientation of family SMEs: The influence of the family character. International Business Review, 28(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.06.003

Alkaabi, S. K., & Dixon, C. (2014). Factors affecting internationalization decision making in family businesses: An integrated literature review. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 53–77. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1543779560/FB120A588BF64A72PQ/4?accountid=14555&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

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

Arafat, M. Y., Khan, A. M., Ansari, M. S., & Saleem, I. (2022). What drives internationalization of new ventures? Evidence from India. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00225-4

Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 60(7), 1320-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062

Arrègle, J.L., Duran, P., Hitt, M.A. & van Essen, M. (2017). Why Is Family Firms’ Internationalization Unique? A Meta‐Analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(5), 801-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12246

Arrègle, J. L., Chirico, F., Kano, L., Kundu, S. K., Majocchi, A., & Schulze, W. S. (2021). Family firm internationalization: Past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(6), 1159-1198. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00425-2

Arrègle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x

Arrègle, J., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Internationalization of Family–Controlled Firms: A Study of the Effects of External Involvement in Governance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1115-1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00541.x

Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. (2011). Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs nonfamily leaders. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8), 1060-1072. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.28

Bannò, M., & Trento, S. (2016). International expansion of family firms: the moderating role of successors and external managers. International Journal of Globalization and Small Business, 8(4), 292-315. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2016.081420

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Yakovleva, N. (2021). Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185, 107050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511435355

Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 73-96. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.2.73

Bika, Z., & Kalantaridis, C. (2019). Organizational‐social‐capital, time, and international family SMEs: an empirical study from the East of England. European Management Review, 16(3), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12160

Blanco-Mazagatos, V., Delgado-García, J. B., & Barrero, J. P. (2024). Involvement of multiple generations in management and internationalization of family firms in Spain: the moderating effect of SEW dimensions. Journal of Family Business Management, 14(1), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2022-0022

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351-1408. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1351

Bornhausen, A. M. (2022). Conceptualizing cross-country analyses of family firms: A systematic review and future research agenda. International Business Review, 31(4), 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101924

Boyd, B., Goto, T., & Hollensen, S. (2010). Internationalization of family businesses–evidence from joint venture formations at Danfoss. International Journal of Management Practice, 4(3), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2010.036829

Bubolz, M. M. (2001). Family as source, user, and builder of social capital. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 129-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00091-3

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

Cano‐Rubio, M., Lombardi, R., Fuentes‐Lombardo, G., & Núñez‐Cacho, P. (2021). Familiness, business strategy and stakeholder engagement: The internationalization of Spanish olive oil mills. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 4258-4280. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2868

Canovi, M., Succi, C., Labaki, R., & Calabrò, A. (2022). Motivating next-generation family business members to act entrepreneurially: A role identity perspective. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00919-w

Casillas, J. C., Alayo, M., & Acedo, F. J. (2021). International behaviour of family businesses: new insights after 30 years of research. European Journal of Family Business, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfbejfb.v11i2.13840

Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00092.x

Cesinger, B., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2014). The alchemy of family enterprises’ internationalization: dexterous movers or prodigal laggards? European Journal of International Management, 8(6), 671-696. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2014.064902

Cesinger, B., Hughes, M., Mensching, H., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2016). A socioemotional wealth perspective on how collaboration intensity, trust, and international market knowledge affect family firms’ multinationality. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 586-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.02.004

Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Maalaoui, A. (2023). Internationalization of family business and its performance: examining the moderating role of digitalization and international networking capability. Review of Managerial Science, 17(7), 2443-2470. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfbm-09-2023-0163

Chirico, F., Welsh, D. H., Ireland, R. D., & Sieger, P. (2021). Family versus non‐family firm franchisors: Behavioural and performance Differences. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 165-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12567

Chowdhury, S., Sharma, R. R., & Yu, Y. (2025). Inward internationalization and cross border acquisitions by emerging economy multinational enterprises: The moderating role of family and institutional ownership. Long Range Planning, 58(1), 102486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2024.102486

Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2013). The Influence of Family Goals, Governance, and Resources on Firm Outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1249-1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12064

Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. (2008). Family firms’ risk perception: empirical evidence on the internationalization process. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(3), 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810892283

Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. (2007). The internationalisation process in family firms: choice of market entry strategies. Journal of General Management, 33(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700703300101

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002

Coviello, N. & Munro, H. (1997). Network relationships and the internationalization process of small software firms, International Business Review, 6 (4), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(97)00010-3

Courtial, J. (1994). A co-word analysis of scientometrics. Scientometrics, 31(3), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016875

Crick, D., & Spence, M. (2005). The internationalization of ‘high performing’ UK high-tech SMEs: a study of planned and unplanned strategies. International Business Review, 14(2), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.007

Cuervo‐Cazurra, A., & Colpan, A. M. (2023). Owners’ nonfinancial objectives and the diversification and internationalization of business groups. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(6), 869-891. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12507

Daszkiewicz, N. (2019). Internationalization patterns of Polish family high-tech firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(4), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070409

Debellis, F., Pinelli, M., Hülsbeck, M., & Heider, A. (2023). Ownership, governance, and internationalization in family firms: a replication and extension. Small Business Economics, 61(4), 1437-1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00736-8

Debellis, F., Rondi, E., Buckley, P. J., & De Massis, A. (2024). Family firms and the governance of global value chains. Journal of International Business Studies, 55(8), 962–975. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00716-4

Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non‐family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12015

de Campos, A. C., Lopes, L., & Carreira, C. (2023). Spatial autocorrelation of exports and R&D expenditures in Portugal. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01425-3

de Groote, J., Feninger, M., & Kammerlander, N. (2023). Family firm internationalization and top management team collaboration: Roles, emotional attachment, and risk perceptions. Journal of World Business, 58(6), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2023.101489

De Massis A., Frattini F., Majocchi A., Piscitello L. (2018). Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1199

Díaz-Moriana, V., Moreno-Menendez, A. M., Casillas, J. C., & Arzubiaga, U. (2025). Family firms’ internationalization: a pathway to long-term legitimacy. Review of International Business and Strategy, 35(2/3), 165-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-06-2023-0050

Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0

Doluca, H., Wagner, M., & Block, J. (2018). Sustainability and environmental behaviour in family firms: A longitudinal analysis of environment‐related activities, innovation, and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 152-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1998

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Eddleston, K. A., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2010). Governance and trust in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1043-1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00412.x

Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z

Esbeith, N. K., Molina-Moreno, V., Núñez-Cacho, P. V., & Silva-Santos, B. (2021). Transition to the circular economy in the fashion industry: The case of the Inditex family business. Sustainability. 13(18) https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810202

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

Fang, H., Kotlar, J., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., & De Massis, A. (2018). The pursuit of international opportunities in family firms: Generational differences and the role of knowledge‐based resources. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 136-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1197

Fernández, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2005). Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family businesses: Some influential factors. Family Business Review, 18(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00031.x

Forcadell, F. J., Ubeda, F., & Zúñiga-Vicente, J. Á. (2018). Initial resource heterogeneity differences between family and nonfamily firms: Implications for resource acquisition and resource generation. Long Range Planning, 51(5), 693-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.11.003

Galvagno, M., & Pisano, V. (2021). Building the genealogy of family business internationalization: A bibliometric mixed-method approach. Scientometrics, 126(1), 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03755-4

García-Rivas, M. I., Gálvez-Sánchez, F. J., Noguera-Vivo, J. M., & Meseguer-Sánchez, V. (2023). Corporate social responsibility reports: A review of the evolution, approaches, and prospects. Heliyon, 9, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18348

George, G., Wiklund, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2005). Ownership and the Internationalization of Small Firms. Journal of Management, 31(2), 210-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271760

Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106-137. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106

Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2008). Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: an examination of family influence. Family Business Review, 21(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00119.x

Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Internationalization of Australian family businesses: a managerial capabilities perspective. Family Business Review, 19(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00066.x

Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.2.23

Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez, M. Á., Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Some bibliometric procedures for analysing and evaluating research fields. Applied Intelligence, 48, 1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1105-y

Hadjikhani, A., Ghauri, P., & Johanson, J. (2005). Introduction: Opportunity development in business networks. In Ghauri, P., Hadjikhani, A., & Johanson, J. (Eds.), Managing opportunity development in business networks (1-24). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230379695_1

Haider, Z. A., Li, J., Wang, Y., & Wu, Z. (2021). Do family firms have higher or lower deal valuations? A contextual analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 709-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720910950

Hasanah, U., Sukoco, B. M., Supriharyanti, E., & Wu, W. Y. (2023). Fifty years of artisan entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00308-w

Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3-4), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v41n03_01

Jensen, M.C. & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Jin, C., Wu, B., & Hu, Y. (2021). Family business internationalization in paradox: effects of socioemotional wealth and entrepreneurial spirit. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 667615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667615

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2015). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. In Buckely, P. J., & Ghauri, P. (Eds.), International Business Strategy (33-59). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315848365-5/uppsala-internationalization-process-model-revisited-jan-johanson-jan-erik-vahlne?context=ubx&refId=73332984-9204-421b-9545-7075e16ce603

Kampouri, K., & Hajidimitriou, Y. (2025). Family SMEs post-entry in international markets: decision modes on foreign partners. Review of International Business and Strategy, 35(2/3), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-06-2023-0069

Kampouri, K., & Hajidimitriou, Y. (2023). International partnership failures in the context of family small and medium enterprises internationalization. European Journal of Family Business, 13(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfbejfb.vi.15154

Keathley-Herring, H., Van Aken, E., Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Deschamps, F., Letens, G., & Orlandini, P. C. (2016). Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics, 109(2), 927-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2096-x

Keen, C., Sanchez-Famoso, V., & Dana, L. P. (2024). Moderating effect of social capital on the dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation and internationalization of Spanish family-owned businesses. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.42

Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103

Kidwell, R. E., Fuentes‐Lombardo, G., Sánchez‐Famoso, V., Cano‐Rubio, M., & Kloepfer, K. E. (2020). Human capital in the internationalization of family firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22107

Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2012). Social capital in the international operations of family SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211196398

Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2011a). Network ties in the international opportunity recognition of family SMEs. International Business Review, 20(4), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.08.002

Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2011b). Social capital in relation to the foreign market entry and post-entry operations of family SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 9, 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-010-0072-8

Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.04.001

Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family–Cantered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1263-1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12065

Liang, X., Wang, L., & Cui, Z. (2014). Chinese private firms and internationalization: Effects of family involvement in management and family ownership. Family Business Review, 27(2), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513480885

Ling, M., Wang, X., & Wang, M. (2026). Industrial diversification and family firm internationalization: The moderating effect of family governance structure. Future Business Journal, 12(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-025-00702-8

Lorenzo, D., Núñez-Cacho, P., Akhter, N., & Chirico, F. (2022). Why are some family firms not innovative? Innovation barriers and path dependence in family firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38(1), 101182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101182

Luong, T. T., Dang, C. M., & Tran, Q. N. (2024). Drivers of knowledge transfer for succession in family business: a perspective article. Journal of Family Business Management, 14(4), 813-822. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-09-2023-0159

Majocchi, A., Odorici, V., & Presutti, M. (2016). Firm ownership and internationalization: is it context that truly matters? European Journal of International Management, 10(2), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2016.074472

Mayes-Ramírez, M. M., Gálvez-Sánchez, F. J., Ramos-Ridao, Á. F., & Molina-Moreno, V. (2023). Urban Waste: Visualizing the Academic Literature through Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(3), 1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031846

Mazzelli, A., Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2023). Outcome-based imitation in family firms’ international market entry decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(4), 1059-1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211058365

Memili, E., Misra, K., Chrisman, J. J., & Welsh, D. H. (2017). Internationalization of publicly traded family firms: a transaction cost theory perspective and longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 16(1-2), 80-108. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2017.082538

Mensching, H., Calabrò, A., Eggers, F., & Kraus, S. (2016). Internationalization of family and nonfamily firms: a conjoint experiment among CEOs. European Journal of International Management, 10 (5), 581-604. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2016.078795

Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19(1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00063.x

Miller, D., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. (2013). Is family leadership always beneficial? Strategic Management Journal, 34(5), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2024

Mitter, C., Duller, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Kraus, S. (2014). Internationalization of family firms: The effect of ownership and governance. Review of Managerial Science, 8(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-012-0093-x

Monreal-Pérez, J., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2017). Does transitioning from family to nonfamily controlled firm influence internationalization? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(4), 775-792. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2017-0029

Moreno-Menéndez, A. M., & Castiglioni, M. (2021). The Influence of Socio-Emotional Wealth on the Speed of the Export Development Process in Family and Non-Family Firms. European Journal of Family Business, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfbejfb.v11i2.10782

Núñez-Cacho, P. (2010). The Effects of Training and Development of Human Resources on the Performance of Spanish Family Businesses. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Jaén. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263584029_Los_efectos_de_la_formacion_y_el_desarrollo_de_los_recursos_humanos_en_las_empresas_familiares_espanolas

Núñez-Cacho, P., & Grande, F. A. (2013). The importance of mentoring and coaching for family businesses. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(4), 386-404. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2013.28

Núñez-Cacho, P., & Lorenzo-Gómez, J. D. (2020). Temporary factors that condition innovation: comparison between family and nonfamily businesses. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(3), 1740-1759. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(20)

Núñez-Cacho, P., Lorenzo-Gómez, J.D., Maqueira-Marín, J.M. (2026). The Organizational Tightrope Walker: How do family businesses address their paradoxes? A Systematic Literature Review.
Journal of Family Business Management.1-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-10-2025-0321

Olivares-Mesa, A., & Cabrera-Suarez, K. (2006). Factors affecting the timing of the export development process: does the family influence on the business make a difference? International Journal of Globalization and Small Business, 1(4), 326-339. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2006.012183

Omri, W., Cheffou, A. I., & Sener, P. (2023). The missing link between governance factors and entrepreneurial internationalization of family SMEs: an empirical analysis of an emerging economy. European Journal of International Management, 20(4), 550-575. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211058365

Panicker, S. V., & Upadhyayula, R. S. (2021). Limiting role of resource dependence: an examination of director interlocks, board meetings, and family ownership. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2), 424-451. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-01-2020-0006

Paul, J., & Rialp Criado, A. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949-969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x

Piva, E., Rossi-Lamastra, C., & De Massis, A. (2013). Family firms and internationalization: An exploratory study on high-tech entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 108-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-012-0100-y

Plakoyiannaki, E., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E., Hassett, M., Liesch, P. W., Andersson, U., & Rose, E. L. (2024). Time matters: Rethinking the role of time in the philosophical, conceptual, and methodological domains of international business. Journal of World Business, 59(2), 101521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2024.101521

Prados-Peña, M. B., Gálvez-Sánchez, F. J., García-López, A., & Molina-Moreno, V. (2022). Sustainable Crafts: Describing Conceptual Evolution Through a Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.949681

Prashantham, S. (2005). Toward a Knowledge-Based Conceptualization of Internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3, 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-005-0304-5

Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A. (2014). The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review, 27(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513491423

Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A., & Singh, S. N. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics, 102, 929-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1402-8

Reiners, C., & Kammerlander, N. (2024). The Role of Networks for Radical Change in Family Firms: A Systematic Literature Review. European Journal of Family Business, 14(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfb.14.2.2024.19430

Rialp Criado, A., Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., & Urbano, D. (2019). Twenty-five years (1992–2016) of the international business review: a bibliometric overview. International Business Review, 28(6), 101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101587

Rogoff, E. G., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 559-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00009-0

Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2022). Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(3), 100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2021.100422

Santulli, R., Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Gallucci, C. (2019). Family ownership concentration and firm internationalization: integrating principal-principal and socioemotional wealth perspectives. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 220-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-019-00245-4

Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., Astrachan, J. H., & Pieper, T. M. (2012). The role of family ownership in international entrepreneurship: Exploring nonlinear effects. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9264-9

Shi, H. X., Graves, C., & Barbera, F. (2019). Intergenerational succession and internationalization strategy of family SMEs: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 52(4), 101838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.05.004

Sikandar, H., Kohar, U. H. A., Corzo-Palomo, E. E., Gamero-Huarcaya, V. K., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Shabbir, M. S., & Jain, V. (2023). Mapping the development of open innovation research in business and management field: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01280-2

Singla, C., G., & Veliyath, R. (2010). Internationalization, family business, and corporate governance: An emerging market perspective. In Academy of Management Proceedings (1), 1-6. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2010.54493684

Sirmon, D. G., Arrègle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., & Webb, J. W. (2008). The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 979-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00267.x

Smajić, H., Palalić, R., & Ahmad, N. (2023). Future perspective of socioemotional wealth (SEW) in family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 13(4), 923-954. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2022-0070

Stieg, P., Hiebl, M. R., Kraus, S., Schüssler, F., & Sattler, S. (2017). Born-again globals: generational change and family business internationalization. European Journal of International Management, 11(5), 581-605. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2017.086693

Sundaramurthy, C., & Dean, M. A. (2008). Family businesses’ openness to external influence and international sales: An empirical examination. Multinational Business Review, 16(2), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/1525383X200800009

Terán-Yépez, E. (2024). Post-entry decisions in international entrepreneurship and family business: a perspective article. Journal of Family Business Management, 14(4), 823-828. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-09-2023-0163

Tung, J., Lo, S. C., Chung, T., & Huang, K. P. (2014). Family business internationalization: The role of entrepreneurship and generation involvement. The Anthropologist, 17(3), 811-822. https://krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-17-0-000-14-Web/Anth-17-3-000-14-Abst-PDF/T-ANTH-17-3-811-14-1070-Lo-Sheng-Chung/T-ANTH-17-3-811-14-1070-Lo-Sheng-Chung-Tx%5B13%5D.pdf

Wach, K. (2015). Incremental versus rapid internationalization of firms: Results of exploratory investigation from Poland. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(4), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2015.030403

Wach, K. (2017). Exploring the role of ownership in international entrepreneurship: how does ownership affect internationalization of Polish firms? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(4), 205-224. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2017.050410

Walters, W. H. (2017). Citation-based journal rankings: Key questions, metrics, and data sources. IEEE Access, 5, 22036-22053. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2761400

Weinberg, B. H. (1974). Bibliographic coupling: A review. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(5-6), 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(74)90058-8

Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Huskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x

Yadollahi Farsi, J., & Pourmesgari, M. (2024). A systematic review of theories on family business internationalization. International Journal of Business and Development Studies, 16(2), 71–101. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijbds.2024.50227.2161

Yang, X., Li, J., Stanley, L. J., Kellermanns, F. W., & Li, X. (2020). How family firm characteristics affect internationalization of Chinese family SMEs. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(2), 417-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9579-7

Zahra, S. A. (2003). International expansion of US manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 495-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00057-0

Zavaraqi, R., & Fadaie, G. R. (2012). Scientometrics or science of science: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed one. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(2), 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2012.10700939

Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851-868. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0665

Zhang, L., & Eichmann-Kalwara, N. (2019). Mapping the scholarly literature found in Scopus on “research data management”: A bibliometric and data visualization approach. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2266

Zhou, L., Han, Y., & Gou, C. (2019). Influence of family involvement on family firm internationalization: The moderating effects of industrial and institutional environments. Sustainability, 11(20), 5721. https://doi.org./10.3390/su11205721

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Internationalization of Family Firms in the Twenty-First Century: A Review and Research Agenda

JEL Code

L26, F23, M16

KEYWORDS

Family business; Internationalization; Socioemotional wealth; Governance; Networks; Multilevel framework.

CÓDIGO JEL

L26, F23, M16

PALABRAS CLAVE

Empresa familiar; Internacionalización; Riqueza socioemocional; Gobernanza; Redes; Marco multinivel

Internacionalización de las empresas familiares en el siglo XXI: una revisión y agenda de investigación

*Corresponding author:

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1. Method and variables under study

2.2. Stages of bibliometric analysis and syste-matic review

The bibliometric analysis is performed in two phases (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Phases of the analysis methodology.

3. Results

3.1. Key features of family business internationalization

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the research on the internationalization of family businesses in the period 2001--2025 over five-year periods.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the selected papers

Source: Authors using the Scopus database

Table 2. Top 10 most relevant research articles

Rank

Author(s)

Year

Title

Journal

Citations

1

Zahra, S.A.

2003

International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement

Journal of Business Venturing

704

2

Fernández, Z., & Nieto, M. J.

2005

Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family businesses: Several influential factors

Family Business Review

501

3

George, G., Wiklund, J., & Zahra, S. A.

2005

Ownership and the internationalization of small firms

Journal of Management

446

4

Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A.

2014

The Internationalization of Family Firms: A Critical Review and Integrative Model

Family Business Review

408

5

De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A. & Piscitello, L.

2018

Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes

Global Strategy Journal

364

6

Graves, C., & Thomas, J.

2008

Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence

Family Business Review

330

7

Kontinen, T. & Ojala, A.

2010

The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research

Journal of Family Business Strategy

293

8

Arrègle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A. & van Essen, M.

2017

Why Is Family Firms' Internationalization Unique? A Meta-Analysis

Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice

279

9

Arrègle, J., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A.

2012