Guest editorial: Family firm internationalization: rethinking theories, methods and contexts

Family firms (FFs) – organizations in which a family has the power to influence strategic decisions and the intention to pass the company on to future generations (Chua et al., 1999) – are the predominant form of organization worldwide. They account for more than half of global GDP and constitute the majority of companies in both developed and emerging markets (Arregle et al., 2024; Debellis et al., 2021a). The international expansion of these companies is therefore highly significant. The literature on FF internationalization has grown exponentially since the publication of the first article over 30 years ago by Gallo and Sveen (1991). While the topic of FF internationalization was largely overlooked by International Business (IB) scholars for many years, this trend has reversed significantly over the past decade. Numerous articles have been published in leading IB journals, along with dedicated special issues. Thus, while FF research was previously considered a “niche” area of study, the past decade has seen a clear shift. IB scholars are increasingly recognizing FF not merely as a context but as “the” context in which most international operations take place (Debellis et al., 2024). This therefore calls for revisiting the theories developed in traditional IB literature, taking into account the unique characteristics of FFs.

A fundamental element in the analysis of FFs is the presence of socioemotional wealth (SEW), i.e. the set of noneconomic aspects that affect family endowment (Berrone et al., 2012). These include the family’s desire to maintain control and pass it on to future generations, the family’s identification with the firm and the blurred boundaries that exist between the business and the family itself. In addition, SEW encompasses the role of emotions, the importance of relationships and social ties. These aspects reflect various family-centered economic goals, which may sometimes be misaligned with the firm’s economic objectives, thereby creating the potential for tensions and governance challenges. As noted above, this context, due to this mixed gamble between economic and socioemotional goals, requires rethinking IB theories which are primarily based on mere economic efficiency principles.

This Special Issue aims to contribute to FF internationalization research by reflecting on the evolution of the field and providing guidelines for its future development. The main goal is to recognize the FF as a key player in IB and to examine how the presence of SEW priorities requires IB scholars to reconsider theories, methods and contexts. This editorial is organized into three main sections. Section 1 provides a summary of how the FF internationalization literature has evolved over time. Section 2 discusses key aspects for advancing FF internationalization research, aiming to position it as a central focus for IB scholars to reassess theories, methods and contexts. The final section summarizes the articles included in this special issue and their contribution to the current debate on FF internationalization.

The first article published on the topic of FF internationalization was by Gallo and Sveen in 1991 in the Family Business Review. In this work, the authors identified the factors through which family ownership could serve either as an advantage or a constraint to internationalization. For nearly 30 years afterward, most of the literature on FF and entrepreneurship considered FFs as a homogeneous entity, distinguishing them from nonfamily counterparts. In the initial phase of FF internationalization literature development, the primary focus was indeed on just differentiating family from non-FFs. To address this dichotomy, scholars have primarily drawn on agency theory (Meckling and Jensen, 1976), stewardship theory (Davis et al., 1997) or the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), rather than IB-focused theories. The sample used for analyses was almost exclusively composed of family SMEs based in Western Europe or North America that internationalized through exports. The analysis primarily relied on economic outcomes, with little attention paid to family dynamics and noneconomic goals. Moreover, the variable used to measure internationalization was mainly the ratio of foreign sales to total sales. This approach did not allow for a distinction between internationalization scale and scope, nor did it capture whether the FF operated in multiple or fewer different institutional contexts, leaving the understanding of the phenomenon somewhat limited.

Between 2008 and 2015, in what has been defined as the “second wave” of FF internationalization literature (see the literature review by Debellis et al., 2021a), research began to explore the heterogeneity of such firms. During this phase, distinctions between internationalization scale and scope started to emerge. However, research remained largely static, primarily using variance-based methodologies. Internationalization continued to be treated as an outcome rather than a process. In this phase, the used theories are not yet IB-focused, but there is often a concurrent use of two theories together (e.g. agency theory and stewardship theory). The focus remained on SMEs and their export activities, with limited attention given to FDIs and family MNEs. This explains why the IB community did not consider this focus particularly relevant, leading to most articles on FF internationalization being published in entrepreneurship and small business journals rather than in IB-focused journals.

With the third wave, which began in 2014, the literature finally started to examine entry modes beyond exports and explored different geographical settings, often analyzing multiple regions simultaneously, although the focus remained on Western countries. Researchers began investigating various sources of heterogeneity in FFs, such as the type of leadership (Banalieva and Eddleston, 2011), family structures (Arregle et al., 2019) or business models (Hennart et al., 2019). The predominant methodological approach remained quantitative, with the majority of studies adopting a cross-sectional and variance-based approach (Metsola et al., 2020), focusing on internationalization merely as an outcome. This approach overlooked process-based explanations, post-entry outcomes and the tensions and conflicts among FF actors (Reuber, 2016).

Starting from 2016, with the onset of the fourth wave, scholars have begun to pay greater attention to the dynamics previously overlooked, such as process-based explanations, post-entry outcomes and the tensions among FF actors. Attention has shifted towards large MNEs, also from emerging markets, taking greater consideration of entry modes beyond exports, such as greenfield investments and acquisitions (Boellis et al., 2016), international joint ventures (Debellis et al., 2021b; Sestu and Majocchi, 2020) and post-entry decisions, such as exits (Chirico et al., 2020) and divestitures (Kim et al., 2019). In addition, scholars have increasingly recognized the importance of the institutional context. In this regard, Arregle et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis demonstrating the necessity of analyzing the home institutional context. Their study specifically examined factors such as the protection of minority shareholders and the general level of trust toward people from other nations. In recent years, there has been growing attention to the role of informal institutions in explaining FF strategies (see Berrone et al., 2022; Pinelli et al., 2024b, 2025). It is indeed only in the past decade that FF internationalization literature has gained increasing recognition from the IB community, leading to more publications in leading IB journals. Indeed, in recent years, several special issues have been dedicated to FF internationalization, such as those in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Global Strategy Journal and Journal of World Business [¹], or the current call for papers in the Journal of International Business Studies, focusing on FFs in the Global South and Grand Challenges, which reflect the growing interest in FF as a critical context for advancing the IB field.

IB theories (e.g. internalization theory, transaction cost economics) have traditionally been built on principles of economic efficiency, where firms aim to minimize costs. However, the presence of SEW in FFs and their mixed-gamble logic necessitates a reconsideration of these theories, as comparative efficiency considerations necessarily differ in this context. Below, we argue the need to rethink certain theories and capitalize on existing yet underutilized approaches.

In a recent study, Debellis et al. (2024) revised the internalization theory and the global factory model, proving that SEW influences location choices, internalization decisions and relationship management within global value chains. These differences arise when FFs act as lead MNEs or partners, diverging from the conventional Global Factory model (Buckley and Ghauri, 2004; Buckley, 2009). Analyzing how comparative efficiency considerations shift with FF involvement offers insights into internalization theory and sheds new light on control and trust dynamics within global value chains.

Trust is a key yet underexplored concept in this context, which plays a fundamental role in family dynamics. Trust operates on multiple levels, shaping both internal family relationships and external business engagements. It is the foundation for cohesion within the family, ensuring stability and continuity in a setting where the boundaries between family and business are blurred. The emotional bonds between family members preserve harmony and sustain the firm’s long-term vision, reinforcing commitment to future generations. At the business level, trust extends to relationships with commercial partners, where the presence of SEW can reduce transaction costs and mitigate the risk of bounded reliability in strategic alliances. This trust-based approach often influences decision-making, fostering long-term partnerships over short-term efficiency considerations. The way SEW-related aspects influence trust perception and formation between partners could be a key factor in advancing transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1975, 1979)

Furthermore, trust shapes the firm’s connection with its local environment, strengthening territorial roots and deepening ties with the surrounding community. It also plays a crucial role in international expansion, influencing how FFs perceive and interact with institutions in foreign markets. This presents an opportunity to revise institutional theory (North, 1990; Scott, 1995), particularly from the perspective of informal institutional aspects. For instance, the varying degrees of legitimacy that family governance arrangements may have in different contexts would be crucial for better understanding institutional distance between home and target markets.

In relation to the internalization theory mentioned above, future research could benefit from integrating it with SEW in relation to certain strategic decisions, such as relocation in the international market. For instance, specific strategic choices that have become increasingly relevant in the global context – such as reshoring – remain underexplored. As firms reassess their global footprints due to geopolitical turmoil, supply chain disruptions and technological breakthroughs, analyzing how and why FFs opt for reshoring strategies could refine our understanding of their internationalization processes. This would also enable the integration of internalization theory (Buckley and Casson, 1976) to better understand how SEW evaluations influence decisions to relocate activities back to the domestic market, allowing for greater control over operations, even at the expense of increased production costs.

Another underexplored aspect is the role of multiownership structures in FFs. While FFs are typically defined as those where one or more families influence strategic decision-making and intend to pass control to future generations (Chua et al., 1999), ownership structures vary widely from one FF to the other. FFs range from fully family-owned businesses to multishareholder arrangements involving external investors. These diverse ownership structures can heighten tensions between financial and SEW goals, thereby shaping internationalization strategies in distinct ways. The heterogeneity of ownership structures in FFs and the management of control in international operations could also be significant for advancing the application of property rights theory (Grossman and Hart, 1986; Hart, 1995) in the context of FF internationalization.

In addition, motives for internationalization in FFs may extend beyond traditional market-seeking, efficiency-seeking, strategic asset-seeking or resource-seeking rationales. FFs may indeed be primarily driven by aspirations of legacy-building and legitimacy-seeking by family members, as highlighted by Diaz-Moriana et al., 2025. Incorporating SEW considerations would thus allow for a reassessment of Dunning’s eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1981) in all its dimensions.

Furthermore, the role of strategic leaders in mitigating bounded rationality and bounded reliability in IB is gaining increasing attention in the literature. Exploring how SEW priorities shape how strategic leaders guide firms toward international expansion would offer valuable contributions at the intersection of FFs and IB research (Pinelli et al., 2024a). This is particularly interesting as it encourages an increasing application of microfoundational lens (see Georgakakis et al., 2023) and highlights how the Upper Echelons perspective (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Hambrick, 2007) influences the internationalization process of FFs.

Finally, succession is a key process in a FF’s lifecycle, influencing strategic priorities, risk perceptions and internationalization efforts (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). The impact of succession on internationalization remains an underexplored area, particularly regarding how successors reshape international strategies in response to shifting market conditions and internal family dynamics. The effect of succession could also provide an important theoretical contribution. Indeed, succession and a change in leadership within a FF can mark a shift from a gradual and steady international expansion to a significantly broader and more rapid one, offering insights into the phenomenon of born-again global firms (Bell et al., 2001).

Time is fundamental to understanding FFs internationalization. Given that SEW considerations and multigenerational perspectives continuously shape FFs decision-making (Berrone et al., 2012), it is fundamental to make time a crucial analytical lens when investigating their internationalization process (Magrelli et al., 2022). Rather than following predefined stages, FFs internationalization indeed unfolds in a dynamic and context-dependent manner influenced by the evolving relationship between the family and the firm (Metsola et al., 2020; Leppäaho et al., 2022). While IB scholars agree that internationalization is an ongoing process occurring over time, time and temporality issues have largely been neglected in the conceptualization of such firms (Chua et al., 2004). The concept of family however has an inherent temporal dimension, representing the outcome of “an ongoing process of evolution and transformation” (Abbott, 2016, p. 229) undertaken by related individuals. FFs evolve continuously through generational transitions, lifecycle events and governance adjustments (Sharma et al., 2014). However, FF research has approached time through objective and quantifiable temporal measures – such as firm age and succession timelines. This objective view of time downplays the idiosyncrasies and the complex dynamics within FFs. While largely overlooked, subjective and socially constructed perceptions of time can help scholars to overcome these limitations (Suddaby and Jaskiewicz, 2020). Subjective time indicates that “different social groups create or culturally construct different types of time that become shared meanings” (Ancona et al., 2001, p. 515). Integrating subjective time enables the incorporation of individuals, groups’ and organizations’ time experiences into the study of FFs. As such, IB scholars can better understand the under-theorized relationships between individual- and firm-level decisions and shed light on the heterogeneity of SEW goals in FFs (Middleton et al., 2011).

To capture the complexity of FF internationalization, researchers are invited to use time-sensitive methodologies that account for both firm-level and family-level dynamics. While valuable, traditional cross-sectional and variance-based studies often fail to reflect the longitudinal and processual nature of internationalization. Process approaches, therefore, can allow researchers to track internationalization decisions over extended periods while identifying the role of generational shifts, strategic inflection points and external shocks (Welch and Paavilainen‐Mäntymäki, 2014). In doing so, they provide further insights into how internationalization unfolds over time and how family-specific factors shape decision-making (Leppäaho et al., 2022; Diaz-Moriana et al., 2025). Advances in digital archives and data mining tools further support process approaches (Plakoyiannaki et al., 2024), providing a richer understanding of how FFs balance legacy-building with international expansion over time. Longitudinal case studies, narrative analysis and historical methods – offer insights into decision-making sequences and generational transition events over time (De Villa and Langley, 2024). In particular, historical methods provide a valuable means of understanding the long-term evolution of FF internationalization. Archival data can reveal patterns of international expansion that might not be immediately evident in contemporary studies. The increasing digitalization of archives and advancements in data mining techniques facilitate the construction of longitudinal data sets and the application of time-series analyses to internationalization trajectories of FFs (Decker, 2022; Jones and Khanna, 2006). Quantitative approaches using panel data models or event history analysis, can also facilitate the identification and explanation of complex trends within FFs, over time.

Given the interplay between family and business systems, mixed methods combining qualitative and quantitative techniques offer deeper insights into FF internationalization. In-depth case studies can complement survey-based studies to capture the lived experiences of family members involved in international expansion. At the same time, multilevel analyses help disentangle the effects of individual, family and organizational factors on internationalization outcomes (Daspit et al., 2024). Multilevel analysis can provide a more holistic understanding of the internationalization process of FFs, by illuminating how SEW at the firm-level is deeply rooted in the attitudes, cognition and behaviors of individual family members (Arregle et al., 2021). Multilevel quantitative (e.g. Hierarchical Linear Modeling or Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling) and qualitative (e.g. extended case study method) methodologies can help scholars to unpack the complexity of FF’ internationalization, by using techniques for the analysis of nested structure data (Eden and Nielsen, 2020) ad theorizing complex relations and process dynamics at multiple levels and time periods (Nguyen and Tull, 2022).

Current scholarly conversation suggests that existing IB research has reflected the importance of context (Michailova, 2011; Welch et al., 2011). FFs maintain strong ties to their local environment (Baù et al., 2019), which inevitably influences their strategies. They are embedded within institutional frameworks that shape their governance and decision-making processes (Berrone et al., 2022). Therefore, FF internationalization does not occur in isolation but is embedded within multiple sociocultural, institutional and historical contexts. Existing literature has been characterized by the dominance of a North American model and has concentrated mainly on Western economies, often overlooking how FFs navigate internationalization in emerging markets, transition economies and diverse cultural settings (Tsui, 2007). It has also relied on a decontextualized view of FFs, which underestimates the historical trajectories and embeddedness of the entrepreneurial family (Welch et al., 2022).

Expanding the scope of inquiry to encompass these contexts would enrich the theoretical and empirical understanding of FF internationalization beyond the Western context (Tung, 2023). In doing so, scholars can overcome current concerns about the generalizability of single-country studies based on insufficiently tested assumptions and the need for replication studies (Brinkerink et al., 2022). Historical contextualization can also enrich the understanding and refine the theorizing of FF internationalization (Arikan et al., 2022; Kampouri and Hajidimitriou, 2025). FFs can strategically leverage their historical legacy and local embeddedness when reflecting on their identities and long-term goals. Despite the call for contextualization, researchers have often treated scientific knowledge as context-free and downplayed context pluralism (Teagarden et al., 2018).

Although current IB debates encourage replication studies (Aguinis et al., 2017; Dau et al., 2022), few have been conducted in FF internationalization research (for an exception, see Debellis et al., 2023). Replication studies would enable researchers to assess whether findings remain consistent across different contexts, thereby evaluating their potential generalizability. Similarly, existing research has given limited attention to the context and its intricate relationships with FF strategic decision-making concerning internationalization (Jones and Khanna, 2006). Therefore, addressing context will allow scholars to fully capture the rich contextual nature of IB and hence contribute to fine-tuning and extending existing theories in the field.

This Special Issue advances the debate on FF internationalization by refining theoretical perspectives, expanding methodological approaches and integrating contextual considerations. The articles accepted in this Special Issue (one quantitative and two qualitative) challenge prevailing assumptions by unpacking the complexity of SEW, examining internationalization as a long-term legitimacy-building process and exploring the role of family involvement in post-entry decisions. By emphasizing the interplay between temporal dynamics, decision-making processes and contextual factors, these studies contribute to an enhanced understanding of the mechanisms driving FF internationalization.

The quantitative study “Decomposing Socioemotional Wealth: The Effect of Restricted and Extended Socioemotional Priorities on Family firms’ Internationalization,” by Pinelli, Hülsbeck and Kraus (this issue) examines how restricted family-centric socioemotional priorities and extended socioemotional priorities differently influence the extent of FFs’ internationalization. Their empirical analysis, based on a multicountry cross-sectional sample of 287 FFs, reveals that while restricted socioemotional priorities are associated with limited international expansion, extended socioemotional priorities positively influence internationalization, mainly through long-term relationships with business partners and transgenerational control objectives. By distinguishing between various SEW priorities and demonstrating that not all hold equal importance across FFs, the authors offer a more nuanced understanding of how socioemotional considerations drive internationalization decisions. The article contributes to this Special Issue by rethinking the current conceptualization of SEW as an aggregate construct and theorizing its single constitutive components in the context of FF internationalization.

In their article, “Family firm Internationalization: A Pathway to Long-Term Legitimacy,” Diaz-Moriana, Moreno-Mendez, Casillas and Arzubiaga (2025) conduct a process study analyzing four Irish FFs. They find that family owners and managers assess internationalization’s potential benefits and risks across different time horizons, developing a legacy and legitimacy process model. Their study shows that family leaders use internationalization as a means to establish long-term legitimacy, which, in turn, fosters continued international expansion across generations. Once a FF internationalizes, an international mindset becomes part of its legacy, shaping future generations’ commitment to sustaining international growth. The article contributes to this SI by bringing the concept of time to rethink conceptual and methodological aspects of FF internationalization. By adopting a qualitative process approach, the authors complement the current understanding and theorizing on the role of internationalization decisions in developing long-term legacy and change of SEW reference points over time.

Finally, in their study, “Family SMEs Post-Entry in International Markets: Decision Modes on Foreign Partners”, Kampouri and Hajidimitriou (this issue) explore how SEW shapes family SMEs’ decisions regarding foreign partner selection after entering international markets. They conduct a qualitative case study comparing two Greek family SMEs, one with high family involvement in internationalization activities and the other with low involvement. Their findings highlight the pivotal role of family involvement in shaping post-entry international partnership decisions: high family involvement fosters long-term commitments with strategic partners, whereas low family involvement leads firms to prioritize strategic flexibility in managing international partnerships. The article contributes to this SI by reconsidering the neglected contextual factors influencing FFs international partnership decisions. The authors unravel differences in international partnerships by assuming the role of historical, geographical and relational contexts.

The growing recognition of FFs as key players in IB marks a significant shift in the field, highlighting the need for a reassessment of traditional IB theories, methods and contexts. Once considered a niche topic, FF internationalization has become central to understanding the broader dynamics of global business. The complexities introduced by the interplay between financial objectives and SEW goals challenge conventional economic efficiency frameworks, necessitating a more nuanced approach to studying international expansion. By incorporating SEW considerations, IB scholars are better equipped to grasp the unique ways in which FFs navigate international markets, where decisions are shaped not only by financial motivations but also by family priorities, legacy concerns and long-term commitments. This broader view allows for the acknowledgment of the mixed gamble that drives strategic choices within FFs – balancing risk and reward under both financial and SEW perspective.

By doing so, we aim to bridge the gap between FF and IB scholarship, promoting theoretical advancements that acknowledge the distinct characteristics of FFs. This requires not only revisiting established IB theories but also embracing methodological approaches that account for the complexity, dynamism and overlooked contextual aspects such as historical, geographical and relational, which shape FF internationalization. Ultimately, we hope this Editorial and Special Issue advance the dialogue on FF internationalization and enhance understanding and practices for conducting research in this fascinating area.

This paper forms part of a special section “Family firm internationalization: rethinking theories, methods and contexts”, guest edited by Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, Francesco Debellis and Giulia Galizzi.