ABSTRACT Research Question/Issue This survey reviews 35 years of research on family business governance and examines how institutional settings, family involvement, and methodological choices shape our understanding of family controlled firms. Research Insights The review reveals substantial variation in ownership, governance, and succession across and within world regions. Research outcomes depend critically on how family firms are defined: Narrow ownership‐based definitions misclassify firms and distort conclusions on performance, innovation, and continuity. Changes in the family sphere—in family size, structure, or lineage norms—generate exogenous shifts in governance that help address persistent identification challenges. Outcomes across domains reflect institutional context, leadership traits, and the depth of family embeddedness. Emerging opportunities include sustainability, values‐driven leadership, and the societal role of family firms. Theoretical/Academic Implications Institutional variation produces diverse family firm forms across and within regions. Treating them as a homogeneous category hides this diversity and generates inconsistent empirical results. The review calls for multi‐dimensional definitions encompassing ownership, governance roles, succession intent, and family embeddedness. Socioeconomic trends and regulatory shocks alter family structure and, through embeddedness, create exogenous governance variation that supports causal analysis. Practitioner/Policy Implications The findings underscore the importance of clear governance structures, well‐designed succession planning, and attention to how family dynamics shape decision‐making. For policymakers, the evidence shows how legal institutions and cultural norms influence governance risks and long‐term firm behavior, informing policies that support transparency, accountability, and sustainable conduct.
Lu et al. (2026) studied this question.