Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Strategy Configurations of the World’s Top Family Firms

Another Factor Affecting Performance

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • Many variables have been studied, rather inconclusively, to determine behavioural differences of family firms and any impact on performance. This article focuses on just one under-researched variable: their international strategic choices or rather ‘configurations’. We compare 65 of the world’s top family firms with those of a matched sample of non-family firms.

  • Results suggest that family firms’ ‘international ‘configurations’ were just as worldwide and profitable as those pursued by non-family firms. In the case of such large companies, researchers must consider this international dimension alongside other more acknowledged variables, if they are to advance understanding in this important emerging new field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Strictly speaking the RBV focuses on four aspects of resources and capabilities: their value (V), rarity (R), imitability (I), and organizational (O), known as the VRIO framework (Barney 2002 pp. 157–174); but literature applying RBV to family businesses has tended to see facing the competitive threat from imitability as a more all-embracing challenge. Clearly the other three elements also potentially contribute to addressing this challenge.

  2. Indeed social capital theory (Coleman 1988, Baker 1990, Burt 1992 and 1997, Uzzi 1996, Portes 1998, Steier 2001, Adler/Kwon 2002, Sharma 2004, Agndal et al. 2008) is itself almost a testament to advantages from being part of some notional ‘extended family’ (Sanders/Nee 1996, Steier 2001, Sharma 2004).

  3. Fukiyama’s position here is ultimately not dissimilar to Chandler (1977, 1990). Interestingly the recent Credit Crunch may now profoundly undermine trust relationships in even in countries previously viewed as ‘high trust’. Fukiyama would predict this as likely to lead to far greater government intervention, reducing these countries’ competitiveness. This in turn would reduce some of the advantages he sees for corporate vs. family firms.

  4. For further supporting evidence see also Khanna, Palepu and Sinha (2005) and Khanna (2007) highlighting the effects of ‘institutional voids’. Lin and Zhang (2005) and Zain and Ng (2006) highlight SME network effects exploited by family firms respectively in Taiwan and Malaysia. Zhao and Hsu (2007) show the effect on their foreign market entry strategies.

  5. We should note, as highlighted by Miller et al. 2007, that ‘familiness’ is not necessarily the same thing as the level of family ownership and control, though in practice Sirmon et al. (2008) utilise the latter for their empirical measures.

  6. Arthur Andersen/MassMutual (1997)’s survey found that 69.4% of American family businesses reported not having written a strategic plan. Ward (1997) argued that the rejection of planning in family firms was due to a culture restricting information flow which, in turn, was likely to restrict growth. Harris et al. (1994) found little difference in family firms’ strategic management processes with regard to internationalising, as compared with non-family firms. However, family firms which do use formal strategic planning appear to benefit developmentally (Mazzola/Marchisio/Astrachan 2008) and to internationalise more actively (Rienda et al. 2005).

  7. Ding et al. (2008) also found that Chinese family firms performed significantly better than state-owned companies on five financial ratios between 1999 and 2004.

  8. Reported in The Economist (U.S), Dec 2, 2000, p. 7.

  9. Though export/sales ratios proved similar comparing just medium and large sized companies.

  10. ‘Mixed industries’ are defined as industries which, whilst not exceptionally globalised, nevertheless display considerable internationalisation in terms of firm strategies.

  11. The Rich List is a good place to start the process of identifying family companies. Many of the world’s richest people are founders or descendants of family businesses. For example, at the top of the Forbes list are all the members of the Walton family who are heirs to the retail giant, Wal-Mart.

  12. Presentation given by Michael E Porter, ‘Competitive Strategy for Profitable growth.’ Given Thursday 10th Feb 2005, Edinburgh International Conference Centre.

  13. Miller et al. (2007) report that there findings were ‘indeed highly sensitive both to the way that family businesses were defined and to the nature of the sample’, thus advancing the case for their advocated new variables. However, such sensitivity might equally merely reflect the instability inherent in their statistical model and chosen performance parameters. Robustness tests might be required over successive time periods to establish this.

  14. Appendix D contains pie charts for each category of ownership and shows the percentage of companies found in each Calori strategy type. The main difference is that fully private family companies seemed to have moved beyond opportunistic international challenger and continental leader configurations and to have been most worldwide, as quasi-global transnational restructurers and global shaper players.

  15. Appendix E also compares averaged 5 year sales growth figures for all types over the same period. Family firm types displaying relatively faster sales growth, as compared with non-family firms, were continental leaders and worldwide specialists and, most especially, opportunistic international challengers. There was no consistent trend of internationalisation in general benefiting sales growth. Non-family firms were growing relatively faster in country centred and transnational restructurer types.

  16. This is re-assuring. Our two samples contained the same proportions of US firms. Had this not been the case there would otherwise have been a danger of our results having been skewed by this country performance effect. No statistically significant effect was noted for family firms. There is some residual danger that some differences in the proportions of European vs. Asian companies could slightly skew our results, but these statistical results suggest there should be no systematic skewing.

  17. Using Rugman (2005)’s four alternative categorisations of global, bi-regional, host-regional and home regional, family firms emerged as even more global, but as expected this alternative classification approach yielded less statistically reliable results. The majority of both family and non-family firms would all be classified by Rugman as simply home-regional, affording little discrimination in terms of different types of international strategies.

  18. Cohen and Lindberg (1974)’s sample comprised in fact entirely smaller firms.

  19. These being global shapers, worldwide specialists and global luxury niche players. Other configurations all being on par with each other: country centred, geographical niche, continental leaders, and (in terms of more worldwide players) quasi-global and transnational restructurers.

  20. Wrigley ranked top on RoCE averages over the last 10 years (at 31%) in our sample of 56 family firms, analysed by CIMacro, and Walmart 9th. Anderson and Reeb (2003) likewise noted Wrigley’s superior long-term RoCE figures, as compared with its key rival Hershey Foods and US averages.

  21. These winning family influenced firm types are: Brand Builders (e.g. Estée Lauder, Levi Strauss, Hallmark); Craftsmen (e.g. Coors, Timken, Nordstrom); Operators (e.g., Cargill, Ikea, Walmart); Innovators (e.g. Corning, Michelin, Motorola); Deal Makers (e.g., Bechtel, Bombardier, J.P. Morgan).

References

  • Adler, P. S./Kwon, S.-K., Social Capital Prospects for a New Concept, Academy of Management Review, 27, 1, 2002, pp. 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agndal, H./Chetty, S./Wilson, H., Social Capital Dynamics and Foreign Market Entry, International Business Review, 17, 6, 2008, pp. 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allio, M., Family Businesses: Their Virtues, Vices and Strategic Path, Strategy and Leadership, 32, 4, 2004, pp. 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen A., Mass Mutual, American Family Business Survey, Springfield, Massachusetts: MassMutual 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R./Mansi, S./Reeb, D., Founding Family Ownership and the Agency Cost of Debt, Journal of Financial Economics, 68, 2, 2003, pp. 263–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R./Reeb, D., Founding-family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500, Journal of Finance, 58, 3, 2003, pp. 1301–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L. et al., The Development of Organizational Social Capital: Attributes of Family Firms, Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1, 2007, pp. 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J. H./Klein S. B./Smyrnios, K. X., The F-PEC Scale of Family Influence: A Proposal for Solving the Family Business Definition Problem, Family Business Review, 15, 1, 2002, pp. 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C./Stopford, J., Globalisation Frustrated: The Case of White Goods, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 6, 1991, pp. 493–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W., Market Networks and Corporate Behavior, American Journal of Sociology, 96, 2, 1990, pp. 589–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 1, 1991, pp. 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A./Ghosal, S., Management Across Borders, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bascle, G., Controlling for Endogeneity with Instrumental Variables in Strategic Management Research, Strategic Organization, 6, 3, 2008, pp. 285–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, B. et al., Family Business Research: The Evolution of an Academic Field, Family Business Review, 15, 4, 2002, pp. 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S., Owner-manager Attitudes to Family and Business Issues: A 16 Country Study, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 2, 2001, pp. 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus, R., Entrepreneurship and Family Business Research: Comparisons, Critique, and Lessons, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. et al., Race for the World: Strategies to Build a Great Global Firm, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkart, M./ Panunzi, F./Shleifer, A., Family Firms, Journal of Finance, 58, 5, 2003, pp. 2167–2202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., Social Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., The Contingent Value of Social Capital, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 2, 1997, pp. 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calori, R./Atamer, T./Nunes, P., The Dynamics of International Competition, London: Sage Publications 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family Firms, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29, 3, 2005, pp. 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, C. H., Global, National and Resource Based Strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 7, 1993, pp. 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Competition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. et al., Management Journals as Venues for Publication of Family Business Research, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32, 5, 2008, pp. 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J./Chrisman, J./Sharma, P., Defining the Family Business by Behaviour, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 4, 1999, pp. 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J./Chua, J./Sharma, P., Trends and Directions in the Development of a Strategic Management Theory of the Family Firm, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29, 5, 2005, pp. 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J./Chua, J./Steier, L. (eds.), Theories of Family Business, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 4, 2003, pp. 441–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J./Chua, J./Steier, L., Personalism, Particularism, and the Competitive Behaviors and Advantages of Family Firms: An Introduction, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30, 6, 2006, pp. 719–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T./ Lindberg, R., Survival and Growth of Management Strategies for the Small Firm, New York: AMACOM 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, B. A., The Complex Resource-Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice in Strategic Human Resource Management, Academy of Management Review, 29, 3, 2004, pp. 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociological Review, 94, 1988, pp. 1–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colli, A., (2006) The History of Family Business, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. M., Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s, Harvard Business Review, 73, 4, 1995, pp. 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C./Dalton, D., Financial Performance of Founder-managed versus Professionally Managed Small Corporations, Journal of Small Business Management, 30, 2, 1992, pp. 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C./Dollinger, M., An Empirical Examination of Ownership Structure in Family and Professionally Managed Firms, Family Business Review, 5, 2, 1992, pp. 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C./Thompson, S., Ownership Structure, Strategic Posture, and Firm Growth: An Empirical Examination, Family Business Review, 7, 3, 1994, pp. 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dertouzos, M. L., Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicken, P., Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 5th ed., London: Sage 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Y./Zhuang, H./Zhang, J., The Financial and Operating Performance of Chinese Family-Owned Listed Firms, Management International Review, 48, 3, 2008, pp. 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G. Jr./Handler, W., Entrepreneurship and Family Business: Exploring the Connections, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., The Family: The Missing Variable in Organizational Research, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27, 4, 2003, pp. 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston, K. A./Kellermanns, F. W./Sarathy, R., Resource Configurations in Family Firms: Linking Resources, Strategic Planning and Technological Opportunities to Performance, Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1, 2008, pp. 26–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M.,/Lang, L./Young, L., Dividends and Expropriation, American Economic Review, 91, 1, 2001, pp. 54–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, Z./Nieto, M. J., Internationalization Strategy of Small and Medium-sized Family Businesses: Some Influential Factors, Family Business Review, 18, 1, 2005, pp. 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M./Friedman, S., How to Run a Family Business, Cincinnati, Ohio: Better Way Books 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. L., The World is Flat: The Globalized World in the Twenty-First Century, London: Penguin 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukiyama, F., Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Free Press 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, M., The Role of the Family Business and its Distinctive Characteristics Behavior in Industrial Activity, Family Business Review, 8, 2, 1995, pp. 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, M./Garcia Pont, C. Important factors in family business internationalization, www.cref.ubordeaux4.fr/Noveau%20Site/ARTICLES/Gallo%20et%20et%20Pont%201996.pdf., 1996, p. 988.

  • Gallo, M./Sveen, J., Internationalizing the Family Business: Facilitating and Restraining Factors, Family Business Review, 4, 2, 1991, pp. 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., Semiglobalization and International Business Strategy, Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 2, 2003, pp. 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., Regional Strategies for Global Leadership, Harvard Business Review, 83, 12, 2005, pp. 98–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., Global Strategy in a World of Differences, Boston: Harvard Business School Press 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P./Ghardir, F., The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers, Harvard Business Review, 78, 4, 2000, pp. 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P./Ghardir, F., Global Integration is Not Equal to Global Concentration, Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 1, 2006, pp. 595–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P./Hout, T., Tomorrow’s Global Giants – Not the Usual Suspects’, Harvard Business Review, 86, 11, 2008, pp. 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldwasser, T., Family Pride: Profiles of Five of America’s Best-run Family Businesses, New York: Dodd, Mead & Company 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L./Larraza-Kintana, M./Makri, M., The Determinants of Executive Compensation in Family Controlled Publicly Traded Corporations, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 2003, pp. 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, G./Nicholson, N., Family Wars: Class Conflicts in Family Businesses and How to Deal with Them, London: Kogan Page 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R., The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation, California Management Review, 33, 3, 1991, pp. 114–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, C./Thomas, J., Determinants of the Internationalization Pathways of Family Firms: An Examination of Family Influence, Family Business Review, 21, 2, 2008, pp. 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundson, D./Hartman, A./Tower, B., Strategic Orientation: Differences between Family and Non-family Firms, Family Business Review, 12, 1, 1999, pp. 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G./Williams, M., A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantage of Family Firms, Family Business Review, 12, 1, 1999, pp. 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G./Williams, M./MacMillan, I. C., A Unified Systems Perspective of Family Firm Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 4, 2003, pp. 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D./Martinez, J./Ward, J., Is the Strategy Different for Family-owned Business?, Family Business Review, 7, 2, 1994, pp. 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock, G. (2008) India’s Global Wealth Club: The Stunning Rise of its Billionaires and the Secrets of their Success, Singapore: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hout, T.; Porter, M. E. and Rudden, E. (1982) “How global companies win out”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 60 (5) 98–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, F./Verser, T., Emerging Business, Emerging Field: Entrepreneurship and the Family Firm, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • http://banker.thomsonib.com.

  • http://www.bbconline.co.uk.

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk.

  • http://www.economist.com.

  • http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com.

  • http://www.forbes.com.

  • http://www.fortune.com.

  • http://www.hoovers.com.

  • Hult, G. T. et al., An Assessment of the Measurement of Performance in International Business Research, Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 6, 2008, pp. 1064–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H., Owners as Managers, Extended Horizons and the Family Firm, International Journal of Economic Business, 6, 1, 1999, pp. 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H., Family Capitalism: Wendels, Haniels, Falks, and the Continental European Model, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G./Khanna, T., Bringing History (Back) into International Business, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 4, 2006, pp. 453–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F./Eddleston, K., Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A Family Perspective, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, November, 30, 6, 2006, pp. 809–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., China and India: The Power of Two, Harvard Business Review, 85, 12, 2007, pp. 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T./Palepu, K./Sinha, J., Strategies That Fit Emerging Markets, Harvard Business Review, 83, 6, 2005, pp. 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D./Kandemir, D./Cavusgil, S. T., The Role of the Family Conglomerates in Emerging Markets: What Western Companies Should Know, Thunderbird International Business Review, 46, 1, 2004, pp. 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiley, D., Driven: Inside BMW, the Most Admired Car Company in the World, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, D., Dynasties: Fortune and Misfortune in the World’s Great Family Businesses, London: Penguin 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller, I./Miller, D., Why Do Some Family Businesses Out–compete? Governance, Long-term Orientations, and Sustainable Capability, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30, 6, 2006, pp. 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. Y./Macmillan, I. C., Managerial Knowledge Sharing in Chaebols and Its Impact on the Performance of the Foreign Subsidiaries, International Business Review, 17, 5, 2008, pp. 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leknes, M./Carr, C., Globalisation, International Configuration and Strategic Implications: The Case of Retailing, Long Range Planning, 37, 1, 2004, pp. 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T., The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, 61, 3, 1983, pp. 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. Y./Zhang, J., Changing Structures of SME Networks: Lessons from the Publishing Industry in Taiwan, Long Range Planning, 38, 2, 2005, pp. 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littunen, H./Hyrsky, K., The Early Entrepreneurial Stage in Finnish Family and Non-family Firms’, Family Business Review, 13, 1, 2000, pp. 42–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, J./Stohr, B. S./Quiroga, B. F., Firm Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Public Companies in Chile, Family Business Review, 20, 2, 2007, pp. 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzola, P./Marchisio, G./Astrachan, J., Strategic Planning in Family Business: A Powerful Development Tool for the Next Generation, Family Business Review, 21, 3, 2008, pp. 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, D., Founding-family-controlled Corporations: An Agency-theoretic Analysis of Corporate Ownership and its Impact upon Performance, Operating Efficiency and Capital Structure, Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1994.

  • Miller, D./Le Breton-Miller, I., Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses, Boston: Harvard Business School Press 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. et al., Are Family Businesses Really Superior?, Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 5, 2007, pp. 829–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D./Le Breton-Miller, I./Scholnick, B., Stewardship vs. Stagnation: An Empirical Examination of Small Family and Non-Family Businesses, Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1, 2008, pp. 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R./Strangeland, D. A./Yeung, B., Inherited Wealth, Corporate Control and Economic Growth: The Canadian Disease, in Morck, R. (ed.), Concentrated Ownership, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press 2000, pp. 319–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R./Yeung, B., History in Perspective: Comment on Jones and Khanna ‘Bringing History (Back) into International Business’, Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 2, 2007, pp. 357–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourdoukoutas, P., Business Strategies in a Semiglobal Economy, New York: M.E. Sharpe 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J./Ghoshal, S., Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and Organizational Advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23, 2, 1998, pp. 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J./Ghoshal, S., Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organization Advantage, in Birkinshaw, J./Piramal, G. (eds.), Samantra Ghoshal on Management: A Force for Good, Basingstoke: FT Prentice Hall 2005, pp. 251–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, P./Zhang, J./Liu, C., The Global Business Revolution and the Cascade Effect, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, W. T., Centuries of Success: Lessons from the World’s Most Enduring Family Businesses, Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohmae, K., Triad Power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition, New York: Free Press 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohmae, K., The Borderless World, New York: Harper Business 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohmae, K., The Invisible Continent: Four Strategic Imperatives for the New Economy, London: Nicholas Braeley 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Global Business, South-Western: CENGAGE 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W./Wang, D. Y./Jaing, Y., An Institution-based View of International Business Strategy: A Focus on Emerging Economies, Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 5, 2008, pp. 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology Annual Review, Sociology, 24, 1, 1998, pp. 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poza, E. J., Family Business, Mason: South-Western 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K./Doz, Y. L., The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision, New York: Free Press 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rienda, L./Claver, E/Quer, D., Family Factors and the Firm Internationalisation Process’, Paper presented at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management Workshop on International Strategy and Cross-Cultural Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, 29–30 September, Vienna 2005.

  • Rugman, A. M., The End of Globalization: Why Global Strategy is a Myth and How to Profit from the Realities of Regional Markets, London: Random House Books 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., The Regional Multinationals: MNEs and “Global” Strategic Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A./Verbeke, A., A Perspective on Regional and Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises, Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 1, 2004, pp. 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J. M./Nee, V., Immigrant Self-Employment: The Family as Social Capital and the Value of Human Capital, American Sociological Review, 61, 2, 1996, pp. 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future, Family Business Review, 17, 1, 2004, pp. 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H., Hidden Champions: Lessons from 500 of the World’s Best Unknown companies, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirkin, H. L./Hemerling, J. W./Bhattacharya, A. K., Globality: Competing with Everyone from Everywhere for Everything, London: Headline Business Publishing 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G./Hitt, M. A., Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27, 4, 2003, pp. 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D.G. et al., The Role of Family Influence in Firms’ Strategic Responses to the Threat of Imitation, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36, 6, 2008, pp. 979–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjogren, H., Family Capitalism within Big Business, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 54, 2, 2006, pp. 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. M./Marinez-Lopez, F. J./Coelho, F., The Determinants of Export Performance: A Review of the Research in the Literature between 1998 and 2005, International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 4, 2008, pp. 343–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L., Entrepreneurs and Succession: An Exploratory Study of Modes and Means of Managing Social Capital, and Transfers of Social Capital Within Family Firms, Family Business Review, 14, 3, 2001, pp. 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L./Chrisman, J./Chua, J., Entrepreneurial Management and Governance in Family Firms: An Introduction, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28, 4, 2004, pp. 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., Help One Another, Use One Another: Towards an Anthology of Family Businesses, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27, 4, 2003, pp. 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki (2000), New Yorker, 3 July.

  • Tai, W./Ghoshal, S., Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 4, 1998, pp. 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trostel, A. O./Nichols, M. L., Privately-Held and Publicly-Held Companies: A Comparison of Strategic Choices and Management Processes, Academy of Management Journal, 25, 1, 1982, pp. 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect, American Sociological Review, 61, 4, 1996, pp. 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Agtmael, A., The Emerging Markets Century: How a New Breed of World-Class Companies is Overtaking the World, London: Simon and Schuster 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga, B./Amit, R., How do Family Ownership, Control and Management Affect Firm Value?, Journal of Financial Economics, 80, 2, 2006, pp. 385–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J., Family Ownership, Business Strategy and Performance, Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management Conference, Chicago 1986.

  • Ward, J., The Special Role of Strategic Planning for Family Business, Family Business Review, 1, 2, 1988, pp. 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J., Growing the Family Business: Special Challenges and Best Practices, Family Business Review, 10, 4, 1997, pp. 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5, 1, 1984, pp. 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P./Cowling, M., Family Firm Research: The Need for a Methodological Rethink, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 1, 1998, pp. 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P./Howorth, C., Ownership and Management Issues Associated with Family Performance and Company Objectives, Family Business Review, 19, 4, 2006, pp. 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortman, Jr., M. S., Theoretical Foundations for Family-owned Businesses: A Conceptual and Research Based Paradigm, Family Business Review, 7, 1, 1994, pp. 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, G., Total Global Strategy, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S./Zaheer, A., Trust Across Borders, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 1, 2006, pp. 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., International Expansion of U.S. Manufacturing Family Businesses: The Effect of Ownership and Involvement, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 4, 2003, pp. 495–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zain, M./Ng, S. I., The Impact of Network Relationships on SMEs’ Internationalization Processes, Thunderbird International Business Review, 48, 2, 2006, pp. 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H. et al., Social Ties and Foreign-Market Entry: An Empirical Inquiry, Management International Review, 47, 6, 2007, pp. 815–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge very helpful feedback on the first draft of this article from Peter Rosa, Professor of Family Business at the University of Edinburgh. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of an anonymous MIR reviewer, which has had a very considerable impact in furthering the intellectual development of this article since its original inception.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Chris Carr (Chair of International Business, Business School) & Suzanne Bateman (Research Analyst at one of the world’s top investment companies)

Authors
  1. Chris Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne Bateman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Carr.

Appendices

Appendix A: Calori et al. (2000) Configurations as Extended by Leknes and Carr (2004)

Appendix B: Categorisation of Selected Family Firms by Ownership Levels

Appendix C: Final Categorisation of All Family and Non-family Firm

Appendix D: Pie Charts of Levels of Family Ownership

figure 8a
figure 8b

Appendix E: Average Sales Growth

figure 9

Appendix F: Family and Non-family Performance & Benchmark Metrics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, C., Bateman, S. International Strategy Configurations of the World’s Top Family Firms. Manag Int Rev 49, 733–758 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-009-0018-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-009-0018-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation