1The Significance of Business Ownership and Governance:
Contribution and Profitability of Family Businesses in Finland
Draft June 23 2009
Kalevi Tourunen
Ph.D.
Lecturer of Economics, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences
Helsinki FinlandE-mail: Kalevi.Tourunen@haaga-helia.fi
Seppo Laaksonen
Professor of Statistics
University of Helsinki, FinlandE-mail: Seppo.Laaksonen@helsinki.fi
Abstract
It has been argued that the contribution of family businesses to national economies is considerable on a world-widebasis. The estimates of the contribution of family businesses to total production and employment vary internationally
between 35 and 60 per cent (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; IFERA, 2003). The variation depends on the country,
indicator, calculation method and the definition of what constitutes a family business. However, the exact extent of the
impact of family businesses has remained unknown. One reason for this uncertainty is the fact that there are neither
official statistics nor representative data available of family businesses at the national economic level. The Family
Entrepreneurship Working Group set up by the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Finland made a proposal in 2006 fora definition of a family firm to help researchers find out the number and size of family enterprises and to analyze theirindustrial structure and significance for the Finnish economy. This study is based on that proposal.
First we estimate the contribution of all family businesses to the Finnish economy based on our population level
data of middle-sized and large-sized firms and evaluation made of the significance of small-sized family businesses.
Then we concentrate on profitability comparisons between family and non family firms. The data of this study covers
the years 2000-2005 and it has been built in co-operation with Statistics Finland. For the first time there is a populationlevel income statement and balance sheet data of family businesses available in focused size groups. All middle-sized
and large-sized family businesses were screened from the annual statistics of the Finnish business register and thenidentified by family ownership. Finally the modified register statistics was linked with the income statement andbalance sheet statistics of the same firms.
According to the results 46 per cent of Finnish middle-sized companies and 30 per cent of large-sized companies
are family businesses. Typically family businesses are smaller by size than non family or widely held businesses. Only
20 per cent of the 150 largest Finnish companies are family businesses. Almost all of the middle-sized and large-sizedfamily businesses operate in manufacturing, construction, trade, transportation, communication and business services.
In these industries middle-sized family businesses contributed 41 % and large-sized family businesses 16 % to the total
net sales of the corresponding size group. The personnel figures were 49 % and 22 % respectively. Results linked withestimates regarding ownership and control of small-sized businesses indicate that family businesses as a total
contributed some 21–25 per cent to total production and 26–30 per cent to employment in Finland in 2005.
Family business definition and views of the family influence on firm performance offer background for themodel on which our profitability comparisons are based. Multiple regression analysis showed that first generation
middle- and large-sized family businesses were slightly more profitable than other businesses including family firmsthat had completed one or more generation transfers. Additionally we found that publicly held Finnish family firms
financially outperformed their non family counterparts.
Keywords: Family business, family influence, contribution, profitability

JEL Classification M20/ M21/ D21

2

I

Definition of the family business

Family ownership, governance, management and succession of the firm offer arguments for familybusiness definition (Donnelley, 1988; Handler, 1989). Litz (1995) suggests that “a business firm
may be considered a family business to the extent that its ownership and management areconcentrated within a family unit, and to the extent its members strive to achieve, maintain and or
increase intra-organisational family-based relatedness”. According to Tagiuri and Davis (1996)
family firms are “organizations where two or more extended family members influence thedirection of the business through the exercise of kinship ties, management roles, or ownershiprights”. Shanker and Astrachan (1996) note that family firms could be classified as a continuum of
how much there is different types of family influence and suggest narrow, middle and broad
definition. Further Astrachan, Klein and Smyrnios (2006) define family business in three latentdimensions consisting of power, experience and culture. According to their definition, for example,
ownership indicates power and is observed as cash flow and voting rights.
The size of the firm and family ownership and governance are related, the larger the firm theless likely it is a family firm even though there are international examples of very large-sized family
firms (Wal-Mart, Samsung, Fiat). Family characteristics of the firm could be analyzed also frompsychological and motivational point of views (Hall, 2005; Ikävalko & Jussila, 2006). However,any joint definition for the concept of a family firm has not been achieved.
Following arguments of this discussion the Family Entrepreneurship Working Group set up by
the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Finland (2006) suggested a definition for the family firm to be
used for statistical purposes. This definition has later been adopted, modified and presented by
GEEF (Groupement Européen des Enterprises Familiales - European Group of Owner Managed andFamily Enterprises) to the Commission of European Union as developmental initiative for the firm
statistics agenda. The definition states that a firm is a family enterprise if:
1 The majority of votes are in the possession of the natural person(s) who established the firm, inthe possession of the natural person(s) who has/have acquired the share capital of the firm or in thepossession of their spouses, parents, child or child’s direct heirs.
2 The majority of votes may be indirect or direct.
3 At least one representative of the family or kin is involved in the management or administration of
the firm.
4 Listed companies meet the definition of a family enterprise if the person who established or
acquired the firm (share capital) or their families or descendants possess 25 per cent or more of theright to vote mandated by their share capital.

3

II

Discussion of the significance of family businesses

It is obvious that there is no theory determining the optimal number or contribution of familybusinesses or any ownership structure in the economy. These issues need empirical evidence in thefirst hand. Business ownership and governance are still continuously in the spotlight of both
empirical and theoretical economic discussion. As one ramification of this debate it can be asked dofamily businesses support employment or otherwise act as buffers against negative effects ofglobalization.
It has been frequently stated, especially in studies published in Family Business Review thatfamily businesses are key contributors to economies. However, the exact extent of their impact has
been unknown (Shanker & Astrachan, 1996; La Porta et al. 1999). Further it has been noted that thesuccession of ownership, governance and management are central challenges for family businesssurvival (Sharma, 2004). The population aging problem concerns business continuity as the retiring
process of business owners accelerates. Employment and welfare will partly depend on the natureand success of the transfer of family businesses, be it transfer of generation, management buy-out,or merger or sale to an outside domestic or foreign venture (Tourunen, 2009).
One reason for the problem concerning the exact significance of family businesses is the factthat there are neither official statistics nor representative performance data of these firms at theeconomy level. However, some approximations of the significance of family businesses have been
conducted (Shanker & Astrachan, 1996; Faccio & Lang, 2002; Astrachan & Shanker 2003).The
number and contribution of family businesses vary significantly, depending on the country,
indicator, calculation method and the definition of what constitutes a family business. According toavailable knowledge, contributions of family businesses to total production and employment varyinternationally between 35 to 60 per cent (IFERA 2003/ questimates from 24 countries). As far as
our knowledge none of these approximations are based on data that combines single and reliable
family business identification with business performance micro data.
Our study first presents estimates of the family business contribution to the Finnish economy.
These estimates are based on population level micro data (income statement and balance sheet
statistics of all middle-sized and large-sized firms) and an absolute upper limit estimate of thesignificance of small-sized family firms. Later this year we are also able to offer more precise
estimates of the contribution of small-sized family firms (‘lower limit’) based on sample study andotherwise similar data as used here.

III

Family influence on firm performance

Family relations influence how the family firm is governed and managed (Hoffman et al. 2006).
Business governance and management then affect the competitive edge that transmits to firm
performance (Neubauer & Lank, 1998). Performance broadly defining means efficient use of
productive resources and accomplishment of organizational goals, including profitability and thevalue of the firm (Grant, 1991). It has been suggested that family involvement contributes positively
to family firm’s competitive advantage, the factor determining the performance of the firm
(Hoffman et. al., 2006). Competitive advantage refers to quality of products and services,innovativeness and reputation of the firm, responsibility, employee, customer and stakeholder
loyalty, networks and financing (Arregle et al. 2007).
Habbershon and Williams (1999) define family influence as familiness and Dyer (2006) asfamily effect. These concepts refer to the combination and use of human, social and other resourcesthat are characteristic to family firms. As noted, resources improving competitive advantage in4family firms comprise but do not limit to family specific governance, management and leadershipas well as work environment that inspires employee loyalty (Hoffman et al. 2006).
Human and social resources of the first generation family firms weigh on founder effect whichmeans that the founder of the firm serves as a CEO, speaker of the board or in any other influential
position of the firm (Kelly et al. 2000). The founder controlled firms are those who discover andexploit business opportunities and introduce new ideas, technologies and products through specificinvestments. More generally, founder effect relates to the theory and empirics of entrepreneurship(Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Behrens & Davis, 2008). This means that especially founder CEOs
are persons possessing special technical and managerial skills (McConaughy &Phillips, 1999).
Founder effect may also mean that the heritage of the founder influences for example in the form ofpatents or entrepreneurial spirit even though the firm has gone through generation transfer(s) andthe original founder is no longer in the service of the firm. In addition, family members provide
physical and financial assets for their businesses (Neubauer and Lank, 1998). Resources en bloc andthe way they are used are intertwined and they are usually nurtured during the interaction between
the family and the firm (Ward, 1988; Tokarczyk et al. 2007).
According to the resource based view the competitive advantage of the firm depends on all of its
resources and its capability to take advantage and leverage them (Teece et al. 1997). The capability
to take the best out of resources depends on ownership, governance and management of the firm. At
the bottom line the competitive advantage of the firm depends on its unique resourcing that is hard
if not impossible competitors to furnish. To gain competitive advantage family businesses combine
their family specific resources with other productive resources (staff, technology, customer relations,
supplier chains, financing) in a way competitors cannot imitate (Dyer, 2006).
Further Dyer (2006) argues that “certain family factors can lead to various agency benefits andimportant assets, while other family factors impose costs and liabilities to firm performance”. The
first part of this argument means that family firms have the potential to monitor and control
management with lower agency costs or even avoid the principal agent conflict of interests.
According to Miller and Le-Breton-Miller (2006) and Mustakallio et al. (2002) lower agency costs
in family firms are caused by stewardship attitudes, trust, commitment and relational governance.
Factors influencing negatively on family firm performance refer to family conflicts,
opportunism, nepotism and selfish misuse of firm assets (Schulze et al. 2001). Negative factors also
include free riding, shirking and hold-up by some family members and problems that may arise
from the relationship between minority and majority family owners (Chua, Chrisman and Steier,2003). Tagiuri and Davis (1996) suggest that family influence on firm performance would need to
be seen as a net effect stemming from positive and negative family factors.

IV

Profitability comparisons: building of proposition

Agency, stewardship and lifecycle theories and resource based view conventionally explain themanner in which different aspects of family involvement influence the governance, managerial
practices, resources and performance of family firms (Davis et al., 1997; McConaughy & Phillips,
1999; Dyer, 2006; Chrisman et al., 2007). To organize different aspects, regarding the influence offamily involvement on firm performance family capital theory (Hoffman et al. 2006) has beensuggested. Arregle et al. (2007) propose the concept family social capital to be used of thisrelationship. Here we adopt the concept family social capital which consists of factors such as close
relationships, effective information channels, tacit and explicit knowledge, effective networks,
honorable norms and values, and trust. As noted, these resources are assumed to complete otherresources of the family firm and improve its performance. For example the capacity to transfer the5
corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial spirit, and expertise from one generation to another may
affect to the continuity of competitive advantage of family firms (Koiranen, 2002).
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) categorize social capital in three dimensions: structural, relationaland cognitive. Hoffman et al. (2006) and Arregle et al. (2007) follow this pattern and define
attributes of family (social) capital reflecting this classification (Figure 1). Observing the model
similarities, family social capital could be seen as an application of social capital theory in thefamily business context.
STRUCTURAL FAMILY CAPITAL
Enduring, strong and intense family bonds, experiences, information channels.
Channels in conflict settlement. Forms, hierarchies and rationale of family relations
RELATIONAL FAMILY CAPITAL
Shared Values, Norms, Roles, Beliefs, Trust
Responsibilities, Identity, Commitment, Co-operation
COGNITIVE FAMILY CAPITAL
Common language, tacit and exact knowledge, shared ways of action
Figure 1 Categorization of family social capital (modification from Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Hoffman et al. 2006
and Arregle et al. 2007).

Family social capital is assumed to generate mutual understanding towards common goals andlong term strategy of the family firm that give the potential to improve its operational performance(Arregle et al. 2007). One of the key concepts in family social capital theory is trust which is theintermediating factor between the sources and outcomes of social capital (Coleman, 1988). Further
Coleman defines norms, group identity, enlightened rationality as sources of social capital.
Outcomes of social capital are better communication, coordinated co-operation and fulfillment ofgroup members’ goals.
Based on concepts familiness, family effect and family social capital we analyze the proposition:family influence defined as family ownership and governance improves the competitive edge of thefamily firm in such a way that family firms financially outperform their non family counterparts.
Using descriptive statistics, regression analysis and GLS estimation we estimate the above
proposition by comparing potential profitability differences between first generation family firms,
second/ elder generation family firms and non family firms.

V

Data and methodology

The income statement and balance sheet data of this study include classification variable indicating
family business status of the firm. The data covers all middle-sized and large-sized Finnish firms in
2000-2005 and it is based on annual statistics of Finnish business register. On the ownership
recognition phase the observation unit was an enterprise group or an independent firm when thefirm did not belong to an enterprise group. Family business status was identified according to thefamily business definition presented above. The identification of family businesses was made

6
during 2005–2007 by phone interviews among the population of pre-screened potential family firms(for example public utilities could be classified as non family businesses without interviews). The
owner(s) or the CEO(s) were asked: Do you classify your company as a family business? If so, has
generation transfer(s) taken place in the history of your company? Accordingly, the data can bedivided and the results analyzed in three ‘family business’ groups: first generation familybusinesses, second or elder generation family businesses and non family businesses.
Middle-sized businesses comprise firms that employ at least 50 persons and less than 250
persons. Large-sized businesses include firms that employ 250 persons or more. The register
statistics of firms was first supplemented by family business status variable. Finally the modified
register statistics was combined with official income statement and balance sheet -statistics of thesame companies. The data matrix contains about 150 income statement, balance sheet andaccounting indicator variables. On yearly basis the data of this study covers about 1670 middlesized firms once an enterprise group was set as an observation unit and 3000 firms includinggroup’s parents and affiliates. The population of large-sized firms covers yearly about 530 and 2785
companies respectively.
Return on investment is dependent variable in the model which is based on the proposition set
out in the previous chapter. Family influence is operationalized by family dummy variables
indicating the firm ownership and governance according to the family business definition.
Following referenced empirical studies we use industry, personnel, indebtedness, total assets,
immaterial investments and year dummy as control variables. Results are presented using
descriptive statistics and generalized least squares method in regression estimation.

VI
A

Results
The economic contribution of family businesses

The calculations of employment and production contributions of family businesses are based on ourdata and estimates made of the significance of small-sized family firms. According to thesecalculations all family businesses contributed at most 30 % to total employment and 25 % to total
production in Finland in 2005. These estimates are based on the assumption that all small-sizedbusinesses are family businesses which is not true. If we assume that 80 per cent of all small-sizedbusinesses are family businesses, the contribution estimate of the employment of family firms falls
to 26 % and the estimate of total production to 21 % respectively. 1
In the light of these observations the contribution of family businesses to the Finnish total
production is far less than previously estimated (40-45 %; IFERA, 2003). It seems that it isnecessary first to identify family business status of individual firms instead of for example toestimate contributions on the basis of family business frequency and using aggregate data. One
reason for the difference of family business contribution to the economy between for example
Finland and the USA is the fact that business sector as a total makes about 64 % of the total
production (value addition / Gdp) in Finland and is likely much more in the USA where theestimate of family firms’ contribution to total production is about 60 % (Astrachan & Shanker,
2003).
1

An ongoing continued sample study by the authors confirms that these last figures represent more reliable estimates at
the moment. The preliminary results of this sample study of 2000 small-sized firms show that about 78 per cent of all
small-sized Finnish firms are family firms. Small-sized firm in this continued study is defined as a firm that employs atleast one person on yearly basis and less than 50 persons. It needs to be noted that these sample figures are yet neither
combined with income statement and balance sheet statistics nor adjusted to population level. This means that the“lower level” estimates presented above include bias that will be corrected later.

7

B

The profitability of family businesses compared to non family businesses

The figures shown in table 1 indicate that middle-sized and large-sized family firms as a total seemto have been at least as profitable as non family firms in Finland in 2000 – 2005 even though non
family firms seem to have been slightly more profitable than family firms that have completed one
or more generation transfers. These observations are compatible with the research made byAnderson & Reeb (2003), Jaskiewicz (2005), Lee (2006) and Menendez-Requejo (2006). However,
it is noteworthy to observe that first generation family firms seem to have been most profitable.
This result supports the observations made by Anderson & Reeb (2003), Villalonga & Amit (2006)
and Yong et al. (2007).
TABLE 1:Return on investment, median, %.
Middle-sized and large-sized businesses in Finland in 2000-2005
First generation
family businesses

Second or elder
generation familybusinesses

Non familybusinesses

2000

17,1

12,3

12,6

2001

16,9

11,8

12,4

2002

14,4

11,1

11,4

2003

12,3

10,6

11,2

2004

14,0

10,4

11,8

2005

12,9

9,3

10,7

The result of the regression estimation is presented in table 2. Profitability is again measured as
return on investment which is defined as net result + financial expenses + taxes and divided byaverage invested capital for the fiscal period. Family influence is presented as family businessdummies. Non family dummy is fixed which means that the coefficients of family business dummy
variables define directly how much the return on investment of the family firms is bigger or smaller
than the return on investment of non family firms. In accordance with the figures shown in table 1
the signs of the coefficients are as expected. The personnel of the firm represent the size variable
and it has positive coefficient as could be expected. This means that the larger the firm the better the
return on investment or it can be interpreted as support of scale effect. We also made estimations
including size (personnel) variable raised to exponent two. The corresponding coefficient was
expectedly negative which means that the scale effect starts to dilute eventually.
Opening the family dummy coefficients from logarithm, it showed up that first generation
family businesses made 1.0 %-units better return on investment in 2000-2005 than non familybusinesses in the midpoint of the model. The result supports the proposition regarding family
influence on firm performance. It is also in line with the observations made in table 1. However, theproposition did not get support concerning family firms that had completed one or more generationtransfers. Opening the corresponding coefficient (-0.15) from logarithm, it showed up, that non
family firms made 1.7 % higher return on investment than second or elder generation family firms inthe midpoint of the model. It was found in more detailed balance sheet analysis that family firms that
had completed one or more generation transfers had still best financial standing measured by equity
ratio.
We didn’t make assumptions of the signs of other variables in the regression equation. The
control variables were selected following the design of referenced studies. We also estimated otherprofitable measures and changed the number and composition of explanatory variables but did not
find any new insight that is not included in the estimation result presented in table 2.

8
TABLE 2:Return on investment, GLS estimation
Middle-sized and large-sized firms in Finland in 2000–2005

Dependent variable: ROI = Return on investment
Independent variables:
CON= ConstantF1 = Second or elder generation family business
F2 = First generation family business
NF = Non family business
SIZE = Personnel
ASSETS = Balance sheet, total
DEBT = Long term debt per sales
IMM = Intangible assets per sales
MAN = Manufacturing
TRADE = Trade
CONS= Construction
TRANS = Transportation and storage
OTHER = Other services
YEAR =Year dummy-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The model Log ROI = reg ( CON, F1, F2, NF,
Log SIZE, Log ASSETS, DEBT,
Log IMM, MAN, TRADE, CONS, TRANS, OTHER, YEAR)
R2 = 0,144; F = 216, 56; N = 19 351-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------p-value

77,31
-7,47
3,39

Standard
error oftheestimate
0,050
0,020
0,022

22,27
-31,60-31,99
-9,63

0,007
0,006
0,047
0,015

<0,0001<0,0001<0,0001<0,0001

-2,27
1,98
-2,12
2,32
3,46
4,15
1,74
-0,13
1,36

0,021
0,035
0,030
0,024
0,029
0,029
0,029
0,029
0,029

0,0507
0,0447
0,02490,08820,0005<0,0001
0,08110,89270,1733

Independent
variable

Estimate

t-value oftheestimate

CON
F1
F2
NF
logSIZE
logASSETS
DEBT
logIMM
MAN
TRADE
CONS
TRANS
OTHER
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

3,89
-0,15
0,08
…
0,16
-0,20
-1,52
-0,15
…
-0,05
0,07
-0,06
0,06
0,10
0,12
0,05
-0,00
0,04
…

<0,0001< 0,0001
0,0002

9
We also put attention on performance comparisons between publicly held family and non family
firms in Finland and used data extracted from the data of this study (Kansikas, Tourunen &Laaksonen, 2009). It was found that families were present in one in every four publicly quoted
companies in Finland in 2000-2005. This data indicated that publicly held Finnish family firms
made almost the same output per employee than listed non family firms. The results further showedthat listed family firms were less indebted and outperformed financially non family firms. Usingsimilar model estimation as presented above, it showed up that publicly held family firms made1.5 % -units better return on investment than listed non family firms in Finland in 2000-2005.

VII

Conclusions

The contribution of family firms to the Finnish economy is less than previously estimated. One
explanation for this might be the economic development in the early 1990’s when Finland
experienced its worst peacetime recession. Among the losses were many family firms that haveremained inactive ever since. The question arises whether these findings are worrying especially inthe light of the latest global economic crisis and the fact that a big share of family entrepreneurs isapproaching retirement at an accelerating rate. It can be claimed that the success of family business
transfers is becoming even more important for employment and welfare in Finland.
However, this study suggests that middle-sized and large-sized family businesses as a total were atleast as profitable as their non-family counterparts in the first part of this decade. Additionally weobserved that first generation family firms outperformed both elder generation family firms and nonfamily firms measured by return on investment. We also found that publicly quoted Finnish family
firms financially outperformed their non family counterparts. It was further observed that the larger
the company the better is its profitability even though the size effect eventually dilutes. Concerning
first generation or listed family firms it can be concluded that family influence compensates the size
effect in explaining the profitability of the firm.
Family influence on business performance is multifaceted resource concept embracing family social
capital as a new dimension. We assumed that family influence transmits through competitive
advantage to better performance. Then for example family social capital offers one explanation forthe competitive edge favoring family firms’ performance.
As a limitation of the study it needs to be noted that the measurement of family influence on firm
performance could be more sophisticated. In continued study it would be interesting to supplement
the research data with more detailed family influence factors like family member as CEO,governance variables and also with examining more in depth the founder effect. Founder effectseems to offer explanations of why family firms perform better than non family firms. There arealso holes in the data matrix that cannot be corrected because of lack of data.
More research based knowledge of the economics of family business is needed to service different
purposes. These needs vary from fiscal policy aimed at supporting the overall continuity of familybusinesses to consulting for individual family firms. Especially interesting would be to recognize
studies that concentrate on the contribution of family businesses based on micro data. Future
research comparing performance of family businesses with that of non family businesses also needs
data that are not limited to stock exchange companies.

10

References
Anderson, R. and Reeb, D. (2003) ‘Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the
S & P 500’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 28, No.3, pp. 1301-1327.
Arregle, J-L., Hitt, M., Sirmon, D. and Very, P. (2007) ‘The development of organizational social capital:
attributes of family firms’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 73-95.
Astrachan, J. & Shanker, M. (2003) ‘Family businesses' contribution to the U.S. economy: A Closer
look’, Family Business Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 211–219.
Astrachan, J. H., Klein, S. B. and Smyrnios, K. X. (2006) ‘The F-PEC scale of influence: a proposal forsolving the family business definition problem’, In Handbook of Research on Family Business,
Edward Elgar (eds. Poutziouris –Smyrnios – Klein), pp.167-179.
Behrens, A. & Davis T. (2008) ’Understanding entrepreneurship: Developing comparable indicatorson entrepreneurship and its determinants’. Paper presented at 8th CAED conference,
Budapest May 2008.
Chrisman, J., Sharma, P. and Taggar, S. (2007) ‘Family influences on firms: An introduction’, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 1005-1011.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. and Steier, L. P. (2003) ‘Extending the theoretical horizons of familybusiness research’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, pp. 331-338.
Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
94, pp. 95-130.
Donnelley, R. (1988) ‘The family business’, Family Business Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 427 – 445.
Dyer, Gibb W. Jr. (2006) ‘Examining the “family effect” on firm performance’, Family Business Review,Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 253-273.
Faccio, M. & Lang, L. (2002) ‘The ultimate ownership of western European corporations’, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 365-395.
Grant, R. (1991) ‘The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy
Formulation’, California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114–135.
Habbershon, T. and Williams, M. (1999) ‘A Resource-based framework for assessing the strategic
advantages of family firms’, Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Hall, A. (2005) ‘Beyond the legal: Psychological ownership and responsibility in the family business’,
Paper submitted to FBN 16th Summit, Brussels.
Handler, W. C. (1989)‘Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses’, Family
Business Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 257-276.
Hoffman, J., Hoelscher, M. and Sorenson, R. (2006) ‘Achieving sustained competitive advantage: afamily capital theory’, Family Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 135-145.
IFERA (The International Family Enterprise Academy) (2003) ‘Family businesses dominate’. Family
Business Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 235-250.
Ikävalko, M. and Jussila I. (2006) ‘Collective psychological ownership – A new perspective on familybusiness definitions’, 51st ICSB World Conference, Melbourne, Australia, June 2006.
Jaskiewicz, P. (2005) ‘Family influence and performance. An empirical study for Germany and France.
FBN – IFERA Annual World Research Forum “Responsible Ownership’, September 14-15,
Brussels, Belgium 2005.
Kansikas, J., Tourunen, K. and Laaksonen S. (2008) ’Family Influence on Firm Performance: Finnish
Publicly held Family Firm Perspective’. In press: International Journal of Entrepreneurship andInnovation Management.
Kelly, L., Athanassiou, N. & Crittenden, W. (2009) ‘Founder Centrality and Strategic Behavior in
the Family-Owned Firm’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25, No.2, pp. 27-42.
Klein, S. (2000) ‘Family businesses in Germany: Significance and structure’, Family Business
Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 157–181.

11
Koiranen, M. (2002) ‘Over 100 Years of Age But Still Entrepreneurially Active in Business:
Exploring the Values and Family Characteristics of Old Finnish Family Firms’, Family
Business Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 175–187.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A. (1999) ‘Corporate ownership around the world’, The
Journal of Finance, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 471-517.
Lee, J. (2006) ‘Family firm performance: further evidence’, Family Business Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.
103-114.
Litz,
R.
(1995)‘The
familybusiness:towarddefinitional
clarity’,
Family Business Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 71–81.
McConaughy, D. & Phillips, G. (1999) ‘Founders versus Descendants: The Profitability, Efficiency,
Growth Characteristics and Financing in Large, Public, Founding-Family-Controlled Firms’,
Family Business Review, Vol. 12, No 2, pp. 123-132.
Menendez-Requejo, S. (2006) ‘Ownership structure and firm performance: Evidence from Spanish
family firms’, Handbook of Research on Family Business (eds. Poutziouris, Smyrnios &Klein) Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK. Northhampton, MA, USA.
Ministry of Trade and Industry Finland (2006) ‘Family Entrepreneurship. Family Enterprises as theEngines of Continuity, Renewal and Growth-intensiveness. Publications 7/ 2006.
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006) ‘Family governance and firm performance: agency,
stewardship, and capabilities’, Family Business Review, Vol. XIX, No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Mustakallio, M., Autio, E. and Zahra, S. (2002) ‘Relational and contractual governance in family firms:
Effects on strategic decision making’, Family Business Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 205-222.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) ’Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.242-266.
Neubauer, F. and Lank, A. (1998) ‘The family business – its governance for sustainability’, New York:
Routledge.
Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M., Dino, R. and Buchholz, A. (2001) ‘Agency Relationships in Family Firms:
Theory and Evidence’, Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107–123.
Shanker, M. and Astrachan, J. (1996) ’Myths and realities: family businesses' contribution to the US
economy - a framework for assessing family business statistics’, Family Business Review, Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp. 107 – 123.
Sharma, P. (2004) ‘An overview of the field of family business studies: current status and directions forthe future’, Family Business Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1-36.
Tagiuri, R. and Davis, J.A. (1996) ‘Bivalent attributes on the family businesses’, Family Business Review,Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 199-208.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509 – 533.
Tokarczyk, J., Hansen, E., Green, M. and Down, J .(2007) ‘A Resource-based view and market
orientation theory examination of the role of “familiness” in family business success’, Family
Business Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Tourunen, K. (2009) ‘Family Businesses as an Economic Resource, Ownership, Scale and Profitability of
Middle-Sized and Large-Sized Businesses in Finland in 2000–2005’ (in Finnish), Doctoral
Dissertation, Jyväskylä Studies in Business and Economics 71.
Villalonga, B. and Amit, R. (2006) ’How do family ownership, control and management affect firm
value’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 80, No 2, pp. 385 - 417.
Ward, J. (1988) ‘The special role of strategic planning for family businesses’, Family Business Review,Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 105-117.

12
Yong, W., Ahmed, P. & Farquhar, S. (2007) ‘Founders versus Descendants: The Profitability, Growthand Efficiency Characteristics Comparison in the UK Small and Medium-Sized Family
Businesses’, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 173-195.