Abstract
This article maps and integrates research on legacy in family business using a sample of 140 articles. After describing the process of arriving at a corpus of legacy articles, we propose a systematic literature review that summarizes current literature based on five overarching questions: (a) What is legacy? (b) Who sends and receives legacy? (c) Why is legacy sent and accepted/rejected? (d) How is legacy sent and received? and (e) In which contexts? Based on this review, we identify gaps in the literature and suggest theoretical perspectives and research questions to guide future research on legacy in family business.
Keywords
Introduction
This article maps and integrates prior research on “legacy,” which is a term widely used by management, social science, and humanities scholars yet has a variety of definitions and uses that often muddle its meaning and value for family business scholarship. Legacy is commonly defined (across all English language dictionaries, e.g., American Heritage, Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster) as (a) money or property that is received from someone after they die and (b) something handed down from a predecessor or the past. Synonyms for legacy include heritage, inheritance, bequest, birthright, and tradition. While simple in definition, the specifics of what legacies are; how legacies are created, transmitted, and received; by whom; and in what contexts they operate have shown to be a quagmire (Hammond et al., 2016) of various, often conflicting, attributes, concepts, and processes. In family business scholarship, legacy has been investigated through varying theoretical lenses such as imprinting theory (e.g., Suddaby et al., 2015), institutional theory (e.g., Salvato et al., 2010), social capital theory (e.g., Redding, 1995), and social learning theory (e.g., Chlosta et al., 2012), to name just the most prevalent among them. Legacy has been acknowledged as a major asset of family firms (Barbera et al., 2018; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015), a generative blueprint shaping strategic decisions and behaviors (Burton & Beckman, 2007; Fox & Wade-Benzoni, 2017; Gregersen & Black, 2002), fueling organizational continuity and identity (Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020) and innovation (Arikan et al., 2022; Kammerlander et al., 2015). Legacy catalyzes distinctive and enduring identities (Canovi et al., 2023; Crosina & Gartner, 2021), consolidates legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 2011), helps attract relevant stakeholders (Burton et al., 2022), and promotes a compelling market position (Ge et al., 2022). Conversely, to these positive attributes, legacy has also been acknowledged as a source of constraint in family firms whereby legacy may limit entrepreneurial behavior and identity (Combs et al., 2023; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015) and hinder the capacity to boldly shape the future (De Massis et al., 2016; Lefebvre et al., 2021; Radu-Lefebvre, 2021; Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2020).
Despite decades of knowledge accumulation in this area, we lack a systematic understanding of legacy in family business. As a result, insights into how legacy influences the present and future remain challenging for advancing theory and practice. The increased fragmentation of legacy research perpetuates these blind spots. Indeed, fragmentation arises from the parallel development of four distinct streams of literature, each investigating a different type of legacy: founder legacy (e.g., Burton & Beckman, 2007), family legacy (e.g., Hernandez-Perlines et al., 2021; Zheng & Wong, 2016), family firm legacy (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011; Vrontis et al., 2016), and entrepreneurial legacy (Seuneke et al., 2013). These separate streams of literature have not yet been integrated within a unified perspective of legacy in family business despite prior attempts to synthesize current research (e.g., Hammond et al., 2016; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). For example, the narrative review of Hammond et al. (2016) summarizes the legacy literature by focusing on the nature of family and family firm legacies as encompassing biological, social, and material dimensions. While they highlight some of the mechanisms connecting senders and receivers of legacy in family firms, implicitly addressing the “what” and the “how” of legacy in family business, their narrative review does not comprehensively identify those who send and receive family and family firm legacies (the “who” of legacy) nor do they examine the multiple contexts of legacy at a country, industry, and family business level, which we do in our review. Differently, Jaskiewicz et al. (2015) summarize knowledge regarding entrepreneurial legacy and examines one family mechanism—strategic education, enabling legacy senders to share legacy with legacy receivers. While they partially explore the “how” of entrepreneurial legacy, they do not consider the other three types of legacy nor identify the other family and business mechanisms involved in the circulation of legacy. Neither Jaskiewicz et al. (2015) or Hammond et al. (2016) explore, specifically, who sends and receives legacy. We attempt to fill this gap in our review. Building upon prior research, we integrate the four streams of literature on legacy in family business across five overarching questions—(a) What is legacy? (b) Who sends and receives legacy? (c) Why is legacy sent and accepted/rejected? (d) How is legacy sent and received? and (e) In which contexts?, which results in a 4 x 5 matrix (See Table 3).
Our review contributes to the family business literature by offering a unified process model (See Figure 1) that summarizes current knowledge on legacy and makes visible areas where more research is needed in the future. Because legacy fuels individuals, families, and organizations, such an integrative understanding of legacy carries theoretical and practical implications, particularly regarding the survival and sustainability of family firms over time, which is an issue of major economic and political importance as family businesses are the predominant organizational form (Colli & Rose, 2003) and source of entrepreneurial activity worldwide (Kelley et al., 2020).
A Unified Process Model of Legacy Co-Construction in Family Business.
We describe the process undertaken to identify, select, and code journal articles from a wide variety of sources on the topic of legacy before presenting the main findings of our systematic literature review. A future research agenda is then offered to guide further inquiry on legacy in family business.
Method
We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR)—an established approach in family business and entrepreneurship research (Daspit et al., 2016; Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2021) that uses explicit procedures for searching and selecting relevant publications in a given knowledge domain (Tranfield et al., 2003). SLRs entail three main stages of data collection, curation, and clustering (e.g., Rauch, 2020; Stephan, 2018). We followed these stages, moving from description toward an analytical understanding of the field.
Data Collection
Following prior SLRs (e.g., Madison et al., 2016), we used criteria sampling to identify articles addressing legacy in family business. In January 2023, we looked for relevant online publications in the Web of Science and EBSCO databases, focusing on research published in academic journals up to December 31, 2022. We searched keywords in the titles, abstracts, and article keywords of publications written in English. The first set of keywords (FAMILY FIRM*, FAMILY BUSINESS*, FAMILY ENTERPRISE*, FAMILY GROUP*, FAMILY ENTREPREN*) were selected to ensure we identified articles investigating family firms, while the second set of keywords was selected to ensure we identified articles focusing on legacy, hence the use of LEGAC* and its synonyms (PATRIMONY*, HEIR*, INHERITAN*, HERITAGE*, and TRADIT*). To make sure that we did not omit relevant articles, we also searched for keywords commonly used in family business literature to account for the influence of the past (GENERATIVITY, IMPRINT*, CONTINUIT*, ‘KNOWLEDGE SHARING’*, and GENEALO*). In line with other reviews (e.g., Michiels & Molly, 2017), we excluded books, book chapters, PhD dissertations, and conference proceedings. To identify a robust sample characterized by a high degree of content validity and representative of legacy research, we limited our search to articles published in ABS-ranked journals (The Academic Journal Guide of the Chartered Association of Business Schools). 1 Overall, our search resulted in 1,363 articles after deduplication checks, of which 525 were published in ABS-ranked journals.
As a further check, we supplemented this corpus by examining the reference lists of the ten most-cited articles in this sample (based on CrossRef citation counts 2 ), as Daspit et al. (2016) suggested. We did a manual search to identify the articles whose titles referred to legacy (or its synonyms) in the family business, which led to the identification of 21 additional texts. We also manually searched for articles on legacy (or its synonyms) among the texts citing the ten most-cited articles in the sample, which resulted in 35 additional texts. After deduplication checks, these three rounds of data collection resulted in 581 articles published in ABS-ranked journals (see Table 1).
Data Collection and Curation
Data Curation
After identifying these 581 articles, we read their titles and abstracts and independently evaluated their relevance. We considered as relevant those articles whose focus is on legacy in family business, thus excluding quantitative studies that do not address legacy as an independent or dependent variable and qualitative studies that do not explicitly address legacy in family business as their primary topic of investigation. We also excluded studies whose abstracts included the keyword “family firm” (or its synonyms) but focused on topics such as university professors’ legacy beliefs, self-employment exit, geographic expansion, entrepreneurship education in universities, tourist behavior, economic ideologies, entrepreneurial information search, or employee narrative in social business rather than on legacy in family business. The first step of data curation led us to exclude 496 articles whose focus was outside the scope of the review. Although we agreed on the relevance of 113 articles, 97 articles emerged as discordant cases because their abstract was unclear about whether these studies dealt with legacy in family business. The authors independently read these 97 articles in full text and discussed them during peer-debrief meetings (cf. Gioia et al., 2010). Based on cross-rating and using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria as during the prior data curation, we decided to include 27 additional articles. In total, we selected a final sample of 140 articles (see Appendix A).
Our corpus shows that research on legacy has been published in family business and other discipline-based journals. The first article on legacy was published in 1995, marking our review’s starting point. The number of articles on legacy was extremely limited between 1995 and 2012, with an average of two per year. Legacy garnered increasing interest starting in 2015, with an average of 14 articles published yearly (see Appendix B).
Data Coding and Clustering
We engaged in a systematic full-text reading and coding of the 140 articles. We created a coding grid comprising descriptive and analytical codes to help us map and situate each article within legacy research (cf. Krippendorff, 2004).
First, we used descriptive codes to categorize each article based on the type of paper (conceptual [n = 28] or empirical [n = 112]), theory, 3 method (case study [n = 64], content analysis [n = 2], focus group [n = 3], interviews [n = 17], panel data analysis [n = 11], survey [n = 20], systematic literature review [n = 1]), unit of analysis (individual [n = 48], family [n = 32], business [n = 75]), and role of the legacy variable (independent variable [n = 79], dependent variable [n = 59]). Table 2 shows that research on legacy in family business is mainly empirical (80% of texts) and leverages case studies as the main method of investigation (57. 41% of texts). The high diversity of theoretical approaches within the sample (80 theories) suggests that the field still lacks an overarching theoretical perspective. The sample is dominated by business (53.57% of texts) and individual-level studies (34.28% of texts), legacy being most investigated as an independent variable (56.42% of texts) and slightly less as a dependent variable (42.14% of texts).
Number and Percentage of Papers on Legacy in Family Business by Type, Theory, Method, Nature, Unit of Analysis, and Role of the Legacy Variable.
12 articles use two or three different theories. b6 articles use two different methods. c14 articles adopt two or three different units of analysis.
Next, we collectively engaged in several rounds of discussion about the texts to identify the main research streams of legacy literature in family business. To do so, we explored overarching questions that the articles in the corpus tried to address. For example, Bergfeld and Bergfeld (2022, p. 405) suggest that legacy issues involve “who, why, how, and what,” without providing much detail, while Hammond et al. (2016) implicitly suggested two main questions—“what” and “how”—to study legacy in family business, and Jaskiewicz et al. (2015) also focus on “how.” To these dimensions of “who, what, how, and why,” we added an additional question, “in which context,” to account for the context in which legacy is sent and received. Following the suggestion of Metsola et al. (2020), we engaged in the qualitative content analysis of the 140 articles in our sample using these five overarching questions as analytical codes pointing to the primary focus of the analyzed texts after testing them on the five most-cited articles: (a) What is legacy?, (b) Who sends and receives legacy?, (c) Why is legacy sent and accepted/rejected?, (d) How is legacy sent and received?, and (e) In which context? Based on our comprehensive overview of the legacy literature, we believe these five legacy questions appear to capture the major facets of the phenomenon in a parsimonious fashion. While all the articles provided an answer to the first question, each text focused on some, but usually not all, of the other four questions.
Then, we reexamined the articles in our sample, systematically focusing on each of the five overarching questions to inductively elaborate additional analytical categories enabling the research team to make sense of the texts in relation to the above overarching questions of legacy research. We extended these additional analytical codes based on an individual, independent full-text reading, interpretation, and coding using NVivo software, followed by collective discussions aimed at handling inter-individual discrepancies until reaching agreement regarding the final list of codes. Specifically, to start, we addressed the first question relative to the “what” of legacy by distinguishing among the four types of legacy found in the 140 articles in our corpus: founder legacy [n = 36 4 ], family legacy [n = 76 5 ], family firm legacy [n = 30 6 ], and entrepreneurial legacy [n = 30 7 ]). We used these four types of legacy to inform the underlying theoretical question “what” because prior reviews (e.g., Hammond et al., 2016) show that family business studies use them to identify the type of legacy addressed in the paper. While coding for “what is legacy,” we noticed that the value of legacy is implicitly assessed on a continuum between two end points: maximally positive to maximally negative. Indeed, 67.14% of the texts consider legacy as positive, beneficial for individuals, families, and businesses—that is, an asset (n = 94), while a minority of studies (13.57% of texts) consider legacy as negative, a burden or constraint for individuals, families, and businesses—that is, a liability (n = 19). Some texts embrace the middle of the continuum, simultaneously acknowledging positive and negative aspects of legacy (19.29% of texts), thus considering legacy as both an asset and a liability—that is, a paradox 8 (n = 27). See Appendix A.
We then addressed our second question, “who,” by distinguishing between those who send a legacy (legacy senders 9 ) and those who receive it (legacy receivers 10 ), inductively coding for types of senders and receivers. Then, for each type of sender and receiver, we inductively identified their motivations for sending a legacy 11 and, respectively, accepting or rejecting it, 12 thus addressing our third question, “why?.” We noticed that certain motivations, such as generativity, 13 only characterize legacy senders, whereas other motivations, such as belonging, 14 are specific to legacy receivers only. Certain motivations, such as moral obligation, 15 characterize both senders and receivers. Looking into how studies addressed the fourth question, “how,” we inductively coded for mechanisms and types of artifacts enabling the circulation of legacy (legacy vehicles 16 ), distinguishing between family mechanisms 17 and business mechanisms 18 based on their sphere of occurrence. For instance, among family mechanisms, we coded for primary socialization 19 or firsthand imprinting 20 ; conversely, among business mechanisms, we coded for secondary socialization or organizational arrangements and practices. Finally, we addressed our fifth question, “in which context,” by distinguishing between the family business, 21 industry, 22 and country 23 contexts, inductively coding for the most frequent settings in which legacy is sent and received. While coding for the “who” “why,” “how,” and “in which context” of legacy, we constantly used the four types of legacy—founder legacy, family legacy, family firm legacy and entrepreneurial legacy—as a categorization to split the analysis of the 140 articles in our corpus in meaningful streams of literature.
In so doing, we developed our organizing framework as a 4 × 5 matrix with the four legacy types for which the five, overarching questions are investigated each. See Table 3.
Organizing Framework.
Of which, 24 articles focusing on two or three different legacies. bOf which, 1 article focusing on two different legacies. cOf which, 7 articles focusing on two different legacies. dOf which, 67 articles addressing one type of senders, 61 articles addressing two types of senders, 9 articles addressing three types of senders, and two articles addressing four types of senders. eOf which, 95 article addressing one type of receivers, 30 articles addressing two types of receivers, and 11 articles addressing three types of receivers. fOf which, 110 articles focusing on a single sender motivation, and 21 articles focusing on two sender motivations. gOf which, 94 articles focusing on a single receiver motivation, 27 articles focusing on two receiver motivations, and 5 articles focusing on three receiver motivations. hOf which, 45 articles focusing on a single family mechanism, 20 articles focusing on two family mechanisms, 9 articles focusing on three family mechanisms, and 3 articles focusing on four family mechanisms. iOf which, 68 articles focusing on a single business mechanism, 24 articles focusing on two business mechanisms, and 2 articles focusing on three business mechanisms. jOf which, 50 articles focusing on a single vehicle, 11 articles focusing on two vehicles, and 5 articles focusing on three vehicles. kOf which, 81 articles focusing on a single family business context, 11 articles focusing on two family business contexts, and 2 articles focusing on three family business contexts. lOf which, 65 articles focusing on firms operating in both types of industry. mOf which, 6 articles addressing both established and emerging economies.
In the next sections, we map and integrate legacy research in family business by discussing primary findings and insights that emerged from our review which resulted in a unified process model.
What Is Legacy?
The texts in our corpus primarily focus on the value of legacy and less on its nature or content. Regarding the content of legacy, studies highlight its social or material aspects, depicting legacy as a bundle of values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs or as a financial and physical heritage transmitted by prior generations. At a closer look, the material aspects of legacy represent vehicles of legacy rather than legacy itself. We conceptualize money, buildings, or land as physical artifacts that take on the role of legacy carriers only as much as their receivers attribute them to a known source (individual, family, or firm) and endow them with meanings.
This suggests legacy is a psychological, relational, and historical concept whose nature is immaterial and only comes into life through direct interaction with senders belonging to a prior generation or through artifact-mediated interaction with senders located in the past. The direct or artifact-mediated interaction between senders and receivers of legacy co-constructs legacy, which is fundamentally constituted based on the attributions, interpretations, and evaluation of the receivers and not based on the intentions and hopes of the senders only. Legacy should thus not be confounded with its artifacts because of the risk of reifying immaterial contents which manifest in concrete forms such as words, images, and physical or symbolic artifacts but cannot be fully encapsulated in these forms. The same legacy, therefore, might be carried on through varying artifacts circulating in parallel, which enable receivers to act upon it and use it in the present and, in so doing, to participate in the process of co-construction of legacy over time.
Legacy as an Asset
Most of the reviewed studies—55.55% of the texts on founder legacy (n = 20), 65.78% on family legacy (n = 50), 70% on family firm legacy (n = 21), and 86.66% on entrepreneurial legacy (n = 26) conceptualize legacy as an asset (n = 94). See Table 3.
Founders are depicted as “icons” (Beck et al., 2020, p. 100). A “legacy of the self” (McAdams, 2006, p. 83), founder legacy—the “founder heritage” (Ljungkvist & Boers, 2019) is “both narrative and material in nature” (Maclean et al., 2015, p. 1644) and supports long-term decision-making and orientation (e.g., Durán et al., 2016; Fernández-Roca & López-Manjón, 2021; Hradský & Sadílek, 2020).
Family legacy is characterized as a bundle of “family values, norms, and belief systems” (LeCounte, 2022, p. 624) or “life’s lessons, values, and wishes from previous generations” (Konopaski et al., 2015 p. 353). Redding (1995, p. 62) offered one of the first definitions of family legacy, characterizing it as “shared historical experience and similar family histories.” This historical knowledge helps family members identify cause-effect patterns over time, which helps subsequent generations address economic challenges and overcome natural disasters, wars, and crises. Because of their important relation to the past, the notions of family legacy and tradition are seen as interconnected (e.g., Lee & Shin, 2015), legacy stemming from the intergenerational transfer of traditional knowledge and information (Pérez & Puig, 2004). Lumpkin et al. (2008, p. 131) conceptualize family legacy as a component of tradition, the latter also comprising role identification, rituals, routines, shared history, and shared meaning (see also De Massis et al., 2016).
Family firm legacy (e.g., Ferri & Takahashi, 2022; Lundberg & Öberg, 2021) is defined as a “common value system and a set of rules that describe what goals should be achieved,” “the way they can be accomplished and the criteria by which the actions” of organizational members “can be evaluated” (Keplinger et al., 2016, p. 323). Studies conceptualize family firm legacy as a reflection of the family legacy, both referring to “the enduring meaning that has been attached to the family or firm and extends beyond the time horizon that comes as one particular generation leads the family, manages the family firm, or owns the family firm” (Holt et al., 2017, p. 193). These meanings are seen as social resources boosting firm longevity (Deb et al., 2022; Della Corte et al., 2018; Lorandini, 2015), strengthening competitive advantage, branding, and market positioning (Hradský & Sadílek, 2020; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011), facilitating change management (Giacosa et al., 2017), and enhancing innovation (e.g., Diaz-Moriana et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2015; Magistretti et al., 2020).
Entrepreneurial legacy is most often portrayed as a component of family legacy, comprising “the family’s rhetorical reconstruction of past entrepreneurial achievements or resilience” (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015, p. 29) handed down throughout generations (e.g., Barrett & Moores, 2020; Cherchem, 2017; Igwe, Madichie, & Amoncar, 2020). Barbera et al. (2018) suggested that entrepreneurial legacy influences how individuals build anticipated futures by modifying or enhancing the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs received from the past.
Legacy as a Liability
Rather than envisioning legacy as a social or material resource, a small number of studies (n = 19) advance an alternative perspective, depicting legacy as a burden or constraint for individuals (e.g., Burton & Beckman, 2007), families (e.g., Wielsma & Brunninge, 2019), and firms (e.g., Welch & Welch, 2009). Legacy triggers overwhelming responsibility toward a glorious past, which limits the receiver’s discretion and generates more duties and obligations than rights or privileges. This perspective is adopted by 22.22% of the texts on founder legacy (n = 8), 13.15% of the texts on family legacy (n = 10), 3.33% of the texts on family firm legacy (n = 1), and 6.66% of the texts on entrepreneurial legacy (n = 2) of the entire corpus (see Table 3).
Drawing on embeddedness theory (Cunningham & McGuire, 2019) and situated learning theory (Seuneke et al., 2013), studies show that legacy becomes a liability for different reasons. In certain situations, the embeddedness of the founder’s legacy in organizational culture and routines perpetuates gender biases in successor selection, which prolongs the exclusion of capable women family members from top responsibilities (Mustafa et al., 2019). Indeed, individuals, families, and firms may be so viscerally attached to saving things from the past, not letting them fade away, that they might desperately try to keep the past alive. In such situations, family legacy might limit innovation and change (Szymanska et al., 2019), restraining the range of possibilities enacted in the present from those already implemented and validated in the past. Moreover, as a source of moral obligation, family legacy can be a “poisoned gift” (Sieger & Minola, 2017), requiring the next generation to skillfully manage their degree of concern in relation to the past by enacting strategic dis-embeddedness to protect their future (Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2022).
Seuneke et al. (2013, p. 210) insisted on the necessity to go beyond recipes from the past as they discuss the nature of entrepreneurial legacy understood as a “system memory” encompassing the “specific characteristics and dynamics of the family farm [business], such as the cycle of family life, culture, logics, routines, and successional patterns and perspectives.” These patterns may become dysfunctional, particularly when conservatism and paternalism co-exist, and are fueled by patriarchal cultural traditions (e.g., Kiong, 2005), so legacy receivers should feel entitled to question, challenge, and change them if needed.
Legacy as a Paradox
Twenty-seven texts conceptualize legacy as both an asset and a liability. Legacy is depicted as simultaneously a resource and a constraint for individuals (e.g., Bergfeld & Bergfeld, 2022), families (e.g., Aldrich et al., 2021), and firms (e.g., Ahmad Tipu, 2023). This perspective is embraced by 22.22% of the texts on founder legacy (n = 8), 21.05% of the texts on family legacy (n = 16), 26.66% on family firm legacy (n = 8), and 6.66% of the texts on entrepreneurial legacy (n = 2; see Table 3).
Founder legacy is here conceptualized in ambivalent terms, with ancestors simultaneously depicted as “sacred grounds” providing foundational, inspirational values (Sasaki et al., 2020) and “burdens” (Salvato et al., 2010, p. 322). Managing founder legacy, therefore, requires skillful navigation between “remembering and forgetting” (Sasaki et al., 2020, p. 619) to facilitate organizational adaptation and avoid the loss of competitive advantage over time (Sinha et al., 2020). Similarly, drawing on identity and social identity theories, Brinkerink and Bammens (2018) reveal the paradoxical nature of family legacy, which both boosts and constrains the organization.
At the heart of family firm legacy—defined as “something left or handed down by a predecessor” (Joosse & Grubbström, 2017), there are also forces antithetically calling for continuity and change, legacy emerging as both “an obstacle” and “a blessing” (Morais-Storz et al., 2018, p. 1190) for innovation and change (Memili et al., 2018). Strategic persistence triggered by legacy as a paradox might thus signal long-term continuity (Eze et al., 2021) and, at the same time, lead to organizational inertia (Morais-Storz et al., 2018).
Who Sends and Receives Legacy?
The notions of sender and receiver enable one to distinguish between those who are the source of legacy and those who are its targets or recipients (alternative labels might also be applied, such as those of legator-legatee cf. Colquitt et al., 2023 or entrepreneur-legacy beneficiaries cf. Fox & Wade-Benzoni, 2017). Although these notions might misleadingly suggest that agency is unequally balanced among senders and receivers, keep in mind that legacy is co-constructed by senders and receivers altogether. See Figure 1.
Legacy Senders
The founder (n = 86) is the main sender of legacy—all types of legacies included, followed by the senior generation (n = 71; e.g., Bennedsen et al., 2021; Pieper et al., 2015). To a lesser extent, incumbents (n = 24), wives/mothers, and grandmothers (n = 19) are also acknowledged as legacy senders together with members of the dominant coalition (n = 13) and the organization itself (n = 8). While “the entrepreneur” (e.g., Maclean et al., 2015) builds her legacy, other senders share a legacy they had not personally built but instead received in the past from its original source. The roles of sender and receiver are thus fluid and temporary, the same individual having the potential to endorse them both, either over time or even—hypothetically—at the same moment in time, although we did not encounter in the literature such situations of consecutive or simultaneous role overlap.
Founder legacy is shared by the founder (n = 30), followed by the senior generation (n = 12), and, to a lesser extent, by incumbents (n = 9). Wives/mothers/grandmothers and the dominant coalition are identified as senders of the founder legacy in only five texts (see Table 3). The family firm is depicted as a nexus of the founder legacy, reflected in organizational identity (Maclean et al., 2015), culture (Akroyd & Kober, 2020), structure, and strategy (Ljungkvist & Boers, 2019). Founder legacy is so enduring that it may last long after founder exits (Ljungkvist & Boers, 2019) and survive an external takeover (Steen & Welch, 2006).
Entrepreneurial legacy is also mostly shaped by the founder (n = 21), followed by the senior generation (n = 10). Wives/mothers/grandmothers (n = 9) and incumbents (n = 6) are less involved in sharing entrepreneurial legacy, while the dominant coalition (n = 2) and the organization (n = 1) are seldom identified as senders of entrepreneurial legacy (see Table 3). This legacy is depicted as a source of entrepreneurial vocation in the next generation (e.g., Dou et al., 2021; Jaskiewicz et al., 2016). However, entrepreneurial legacy might also be a source of tension between senders and receivers. From an imprinting perspective, Suddaby et al. (2015) explain that these tensions are generated by the co-occurrence of enabling and constraining social, political, economic, and family-related factors. Legacy receivers should enact reflexivity to identify these factors and envision alternative arrangements and behaviors by transforming the meanings of the past.
Family legacy is primarily built by the senior generation (n = 52), followed by the founder (n = 38; e.g., Miller et al., 2016; Rutherford & Kuratko, 2016). Similarly, the senior generation also plays a central role in sharing family firm legacy (n = 17), followed by the founder (n = 12). The wife/mother/grandmother, the dominant coalition, the incumbent, and the organization play only a minor role as senders of family legacy and family firm legacy. See Table 3. Drawing on identity theory, Bergfeld and Bergfeld (2022) highlight the essential role of the senior generation in sharing family values with offspring, which contributes to the construction of the next generation’s identity and increases its emotional attachment to the organization. The senior generation might share family legacy by encapsulating past experiences in metaphors, as illustrated by Discua Cruz et al. (2021), or by promoting family norms such as interpersonal attention and mutual help, as evidenced by Murithi et al. (2020). Sometimes, family legacy becomes negative. For instance, drawing on career management theory, Achtenhagen et al. (2022) reveal family legacy as a source of constraint for the next generation when the legacy built by the senior generation aims at satisfying the business expectations of legacy senders relative to succession without respecting the dreams and hopes of the offspring.
Overall, the texts in our corpus largely emphasize the founder and the senior generation as sources of legacy, with little emphasis on the role of women, the dominant coalition, or employees as legacy senders. Yet, drawing on transgenerational entrepreneurship theory, Eze et al. (2021) demonstrate that wives and mothers are the main senders of family values, contributing to developing an entrepreneurial mindset in the next generation. Moreover, while the importance given to the senior generation implicitly acknowledges the collective dimension of the process of legacy building, the preeminence of male founders as legacy senders perpetuates an individualistic, masculine, somehow heroic understanding of the origin of legacy in family business (see Bates & Goodsell, 2013).
Legacy Receivers
The next generation (n = 80) is the main receiver of legacy—all types of legacies included (e.g., Ingram et al., 2016), followed by the organization (n = 52), and, to a lesser extent, the successor (n = 32). Employees (n = 20) are more rarely acknowledged as legacy receivers (e.g., Chang & Shim, 2015; Ellis et al., 2017), while customers are identified as receivers of legacy in only three articles (Lee & Shin, 2015; Lorandini, 2015; Vrontis et al., 2016).
Founder legacy is primarily received by the next generation (n = 17) together with the successor (n = 13), the organization (n = 11), and, to a lesser extent, employees (n = 5; see Table 3). Lumpkin et al. (2008) showed that the next generation learns about trust, loyalty, and tradition by interacting with the senior generation within the family. While legacy receivers might accept to embrace the founder legacy, this legacy may also be contested. For instance, drawing on organizational identity theory, Sasaki et al. (2020) show that the next generation manages the impact of legacy on organizational identity by “elaborating,” “recovering,” and “decoupling” founder legacy encapsulated in organizational identity statements. Similarly, using a rhetorical history approach, Sinha et al. (2020) describe how New Zealand’s Gallagher Group manages founder imprints via rearranging processes of “prioritizing” and “suspending.” The next generation decides when and how to use these imprints according to their own objectives. In so doing, they negotiate the influence of the founder’s legacy imprinted as “strategic guideposts” to maintain competitive advantage.
The next generation (n = 47) is also a major receiver of family legacy, followed by the organization (n = 25), and the successor (n = 16). Employees (n = 7) and customers (n = 3) are seldom studied as receivers of the family legacy (see Table 3). Drawing on innovation management theory, Rondi et al. (2019) show that the next generation engages with tradition in family firms by embracing a “seasoner,” a “re-enactor,” a “digger,” or an “adventurer” posture. These postures correspond to different levels of risk-taking and attachment to legacy in the organization. Combining socioemotional wealth theory and entrepreneurial orientation theory, Llanos-Contreras et al. (2019) explain that external shocks to the family or the business affect the next generation’s management of the family legacy within the company. Likewise, Vrontis et al. (2016) argue that legacy per se is neither positive nor negative; tradition should be blended with innovation for the company to maintain its competitive advantage in the wine sector. Indeed, the example of the multigenerational, international company Pio Cesare shows how the fifth generation of the company leverages a combination of tradition and product innovation to develop the company in the Italian market and beyond. However, the disconnect between legacy senders and receivers may sometimes lead to intense stress and anxiety, as evidenced by Wielsma and Brunninge (2019). Drawing on identity theory, the study shows that the next generation must permanently adjust their identities to avoid inconsistencies with the family and firm past identities because of the risk of losing family harmony when not complying with legacy-based expectations.
Entrepreneurial legacy follows a similar pattern, with the next generation (n = 25) identified as the main legacy receiver, followed by the successor (n = 9) and the organization (n = 8), while employees are investigated in such roles in only four articles.
Employees (n = 20), followed by the organization (n = 15), are instead highlighted as the main receivers of family firm legacy, while the next generation (n = 11), customers (n = 3), and the successor (n = 1) are only marginally depicted as receivers of family firm legacy (see Table 3). Given the family business context, the importance given to the next generation as the main beneficiary of founder, family, and entrepreneurial legacies is not surprising. However, the limited number of studies investigating other types of receivers, such as successors and employees, signals a gap in our understanding of how family and non-family members interpret and purposefully use legacies to achieve personal and professional objectives.
Why Is Legacy Sent and Accepted or Rejected?
Studies unanimously depict legacy senders as motivated by a desire to leave a legacy (Fox & Wade-Benzoni, 2017). Although theories such as imprinting theory (e.g., Alrubaishi et al., 2021a) and socialization theory (e.g., Bika et al., 2019) show that legacy can be passed on involuntarily, most of the texts in our corpus examined intended legacies of founders, families, and organizations. Unintended/unconscious legacies are still an unknown territory in family business scholarship.
After deduplication checks, the primary motivation for sharing legacy is identity maintenance (n = 62)—all types of legacies included, followed by moral obligation (n = 38). Emotional attachment (n = 26) and generativity (n = 13) are also identified among the senders’ motivations. On the receiver side, after deduplication checks, the primary motivation for accepting or rejecting legacy is moral obligation (n = 39)—all types of legacies included, followed by emotional attachment (n = 36), belonging (n = 30), identity construction (n = 27), and legitimacy (n = 27). Most studies assume complicity between senders and receivers; only a few texts show that while a sender may have specific legacies to transfer, receivers might reject them for their own reasons (Miller et al., 2003). Yet, given the few studies approaching legacy as a liability, we know little about why certain legacies are denied, forgotten, or abandoned by their receivers.
Legacy Senders’ Motivations
We highlight the most salient aspects of legacy senders’ motivations. See Table 3 for detailed evidence regarding the varied motivations of different legacy senders by type of legacy. Identity maintenance is the primary motivation for sharing founder legacy (n = 20 24 ); followed by moral obligation, n = 16 25 ), family legacy (n = 44 26 ; followed by emotional attachment, n = 25 27 ), and family firm legacy (n = 16, 28 followed by emotional attachment, n = 12 29 ). Moral obligation is the main motive for sharing entrepreneurial legacy (n = 19 30 ), followed by identity maintenance (n = 15 31 ).
Founders share legacy mainly for identity maintenance. The identity maintenance motivation goes hand in hand with moral obligation, which encourages legacy senders to “pass on a growing business” to the next generation driven by the desire to preserve the past and make it last (Ano & Bent, 2022, p. 2051). Indeed, Botero et al. (2022) show how the founders of 93 Spanish family firms share their legacy with the next generation to preserve the identity of the family over generations. Although generally leading to positive effects such as ensuring competitive advantage or sustaining long-term goals, identity maintenance might also exert a deleterious or paradoxical effect on legacy receivers, as evidenced in our corpus (e.g., Ramírez-Pasillas et al., 2021). Drawing on socioemotional wealth theory, Cucculelli et al. (2016) show that the founder’s legacy reflected in the industrial policy of the company affects competence renewal and growth in subsequent generations. The authors reveal the portfolio-dependent decisions of family firms engaged in innovation management and how risk-avoiding decisions based on past reference points increase inertia and path dependency.
Similarly, such inertia also affects the reception of family legacy, as evidenced by Kidwell et al. (2018). Drawing on imprinting theory, the authors show that when negative legacies exist within a company, a re-imprinting of the family culture by legacy receivers might be necessary to replace the “bad habits” transmitted as part of the family legacy; these negative legacies should be “broken and readjusted” to replace them with “positive practices” (p. 7). Moreover, in certain contexts or situations, legacy receivers might have limited capacity to fully accept the family legacy, which might lead to the disintegration of legacy. For instance, in China, the authority of the founder is so strong that the next generation may be unable to provide a stable income to family members after the founder exits (Kiong, 2005, p. 55). This might lead to conflicts and frustrations among siblings and even to “the dissolution of the business, where each son takes his share of the money.” Material legacy artifacts are, in such cases, divided among siblings, while the social legacy of the family as a business family might fade away.
The desire of legacy senders to build and share a legacy encompasses emotional and moral dimensions. Indeed, founders and the senior generation might behave as legacy senders because of their emotional attachment to the family and the firm (e.g., Jaskiewicz, Combs, et al., 2016; Jaskiewicz, Lutz, & Godwin, 2016). For instance, LeCounte (2022, p. 621) shows that the founders’ emotional attachment to the company might be so intense that they may prefer to sell rather than liquidate the company to avoid business discontinuation, particularly when the family firm is multigenerational (cf. also Leroy et al., 2015). Moreover, the senior generation might wish to share a legacy because of a perceived moral obligation. For instance, Strike et al. (2015) explain that near-retirement family owner-managers in family firms are more concerned with leaving a legacy than same-age CEOs in non-family firms because of an increased awareness of their responsibility regarding past and future generations.
We were surprised to discover the limited role devoted to generativity as a motivation for sharing legacy (e.g., Zacher et al., 2012). Characterized by Erikson (1950, p. 231) as “the interest in establishing and guiding the next generation” and depicted as a primary psycho-sociological developmental task of people aged 40 to 65, generativity might be a phenomenon typical to business families and family businesses in general. It has been argued that leaving a legacy is a common “concern and commitment” of senior generations in relation to future generations (cf. McAdams, 2006, p. 81). Yet, despite its evident connection to multigenerational families (see Bates & Goodsell, 2013), only a few texts in our corpus mention generativity as a primary motivation of founders, incumbents, senior generation, wives/mothers/grandmothers, and dominant coalition (e.g., Millová et al., 2023; Newton et al., 2020; Rutherford & Kuratko, 2016).
Although driven by a strong desire to leave a long-lasting legacy, certain legacy senders are nevertheless aware that building a legacy is not a lifetime guarantee. Its survival depends on how receivers will interpret and use it over time. The message sent to his son by the ninth sake master of Kida (Japan) illustrates this anxiety: the master hopes that “he will always remain as a sake master who keeps the family tradition” rather than becoming “a businessman who turns 295 years old Kida Brewery into just a company” (Lee & Shin, 2015, p. 294).
Legacy Receivers’ Motivations
We highlight the most salient aspects of legacy receivers’ motivations. See Table 3 for detailed evidence regarding the varied motivations of different legacy receivers by type of legacy. Emotional attachment is the primary motivation for accepting or rejecting founder legacy (n = 14 32 ; followed by legitimacy, n = 8 33 ), whereas the prime motive for accepting or rejecting family firm legacy (n = 16 34 ; followed by emotional attachment, n = 7 35 ) and entrepreneurial legacy is moral obligation (n = 17 36 ; followed by identity construction, n = 15 37 ). The main motive of family legacy’s receivers is belonging (n = 19 38 ; followed by emotional attachment, n = 19 39 ).
Founder legacy is mainly embraced by the next generation, successors, employees, and the organization because of emotional attachment (e.g., Newton et al., 2020). However, such a legacy might also be rejected or lead to negative outcomes. For instance, Mustafa et al. (2019) show how founder legacy is rejected for identity construction and legitimacy reasons. Similarly, in Chinese family firms characterized by a gender bias in successor selection and appointment, women successors might reject such legacy by actively engaging in gender order disruption (Kubíček & Machek, 2019). In other cases, acting out of emotional attachment might lead to counterproductive uses of family legacy, such as hindering innovation in the present, as evidenced by Szymanska et al. (2019).
The importance of belonging and identity construction motives for the next generation signals a strong coherence between the motivations of senders and receivers, both engaging with legacy building and, respectively, interpretation and use because of identity-related reasons. Interestingly, the receivers who leverage legacy to construct their identities are not only members of the next generation (e.g., Kammerlander et al., 2015) but also employees and even the organization itself. Similarly, the need for belonging motivates receivers to accept legacy to enhance their perceived membership in the family and the business (e.g., Holt et al., 2017). Endorsing legacy enhances the likelihood of being seen by others—family and non-family members alike—as legitimate leaders. For instance, Cabrera-Suárez et al. (2018) show that successors embrace entrepreneurial legacy to secure their own becoming, a desire triggered by identity construction and legitimacy motivation. Alternatively, identity construction might also lead receivers to reject legacy. For instance, Yoo et al. (2014) show how appointing a non-first son as a family business successor disrupted family legacy because successors prefer to reject the inherited family identity to construct distinct identities as family business leaders. Similarly, Akhter et al. (2016) showed how the senders’ motivation to maintain the identity of the family firm might lead to counterproductive, irrational decisions to shut down a satellite business rather than sell it. These decisions trigger incomprehension in legacy receivers, who, however, decide to silence their negative reactions to avoid family exclusion.
Overall, legacy only comes into life within relationships between senders and receivers as joint protagonists of legacy’s co-construction over time, both responsible for cultivating and enacting legacy out of identity-related, emotional, moral, and instrumental motives.
How Is Legacy Sent and Received?
Legacy is inherently
Family Mechanisms
Primary socialization is the major family mechanism of founder legacy (n = 9; followed by family governance, n = 8), family legacy (n = 19; followed by strategic education, n = 11), family firm legacy (n = 5; followed by family storytelling, n = 2, and strategic education, n = 2), and entrepreneurial legacy (n = 13; followed by strategic education, n = 9; see Table 3).
Primary socialization refers to the early exposure of the next generation to legacy senders such as founders, mothers, grandmothers, and senior generations (e.g., LeCounte, 2022; Zheng & Wan, 2022). Kammerlander et al. (2015, p. 334) explain how the imprinting of founder legacy is made possible through family storytelling, stories being depicted as verbal artifacts facilitating the intergenerational circulation of legacy “from one generation to the next even when the founder has long passed away.” Similarly, Salvato et al. (2010) show how the Italian Falck Group made entrepreneurial renewal possible while exiting the steel industry by modifying the meaning of legacy from continuing the founder’s business in steel production to continuing the family’s entrepreneurial spirit. In so doing, the next generation transformed the content of the founder legacy while at the same time preserving organizational identity over time. Certain founders set up family governance mechanisms such as family offices (Carney et al., 2014), family protocols (Barros et al., 2016), and family trusts or foundations (Mackie, 2022) to build their legacy. In other families, as evidenced by Llanos-Contreras et al. (2019, p. 88), founders enact role modeling to secure “a platform from which successors can act strategically.” Role modeling (n = 8) facilitates vicarious learning by conveying living examples of what it means to be an entrepreneur and a family business owner, which enhances the new generation’s understanding of founder values and identity (see Igwe, Newbery, et al., 2020).
Primary socialization is of major importance for the circulation of family legacy and entrepreneurial legacy as well as for family firm legacy, although this legacy is rarely shared through family mechanisms (e.g., Joosse & Grubbström, 2017). Drawing on imprinting theory, the texts in our corpus acknowledge the importance of firsthand imprinting, which is a process of rapid learning and social attachment during childhood intervening in the circulation of family legacy (n = 7) and entrepreneurial legacy (n = 5; e.g., Marques et al., 2022; Powers & Zhao, 2019). Primary socialization and firsthand-imprinting enable the next generation to observe family and parental role models from a close distance (e.g., Banchik, 2019; Bates & Goodsell, 2013; McAdams, 2006). However, the parents’ example might be not only a source of inspiration but also a constraint for the innovative capacity of offspring, as in the Brubeck family (Litz & Kleysen, 2001). Yet, even when parents prefer to follow their dreams and not encourage their children’s aspirations, the authors defend the agency of legacy receivers, arguing that it is the next generation’s responsibility to “get rid of the family skeleton” to create newness in the present.
Although legacy might be shared without an explicit intention, most studies focus on deliberate mechanisms for sharing legacy, such as the strategic education by which the senior generation intentionally inculcates desirable values, norms, and skills in legacy receivers. Most studies insist on its benefits for shaping family legacy (e.g., Combs et al., 2023; Lorandini, 2015; Pérez & Puig, 2004) and entrepreneurial legacy alike (e.g., Buckman et al., 2019; Roscoe et al., 2013; Tarling et al., 2016). Conversely, Achtenhagen et al. (2022) demonstrate that strategic education can also be a “trap” when the needs of the family firm guide educational processes and goals, with little respect or attention to the needs of those expected to accept family legacy. Working within the family business might thus become a “default option” rather than a vocational or passion-based choice (p. 212). Moreover, Mustafa et al. (2019) demonstrate that strategic education might act as a biased mechanism directing legacy exclusively to certain receivers while others, such as women offspring, are excluded based on a patriarchal gendered agenda.
Among the deliberate practices enabling the sharing of founder legacy and family legacy, only two texts examine inheritance rules and practices (Carney et al., 2014; Carr et al., 2016), a topic deserving further exploration. Indeed, based on the comparison of the jurisdictions of Germany, France, Hong Kong, and the United States, Carney et al. (2014) show that symbolic artifacts such as inheritance laws play an essential role in the transfer of property and the maintenance, division, or misallocation of family legacy.
Business Mechanisms
Secondhand imprinting is the major business mechanism of founder legacy (n = 16; followed by organizational arrangements and practices, n = 13), whereas organizational arrangements and practices are the primary business mechanism of family legacy (n = 19; followed by secondary socialization, n = 18) and family firm legacy (n = 9; followed by secondary socialization, n = 7). Entrepreneurial legacy is mainly shared through secondary socialization (n = 10), followed by mentoring and coaching (n = 7). See Table 3.
Drawing on imprinting theory (e.g., Bryant, 2014; Erçek & Günçavdı, 2016), several studies explain how founder legacy is shared with the next generation (Alrubaishi et al., 2021b), successors (Bika et al., 2019), and employees (Akroyd & Kober, 2020) by secondhand imprinting. Founder’s imprints are directly shared through interaction and dialogue in the workplace (e.g., Dou & Li, 2013) or indirectly transmitted through verbal artifacts such as stories strategically shaped and re-shaped over time (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016). Alongside founders, family members act as “custodians in charge of passing on a legacy” to non-family members, thus maintaining a legacy in the organization’s collective memory (Vincent-Ponroy et al., 2019, p. 873). The direct and indirect transmission of the founder’s values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs within the organization generates emotional attachment and implicit learning in legacy receivers (see Kammerlander et al., 2015). Founders strategically engage with secondhand imprinting by materializing their legacy in symbolic artifacts (Llanos-Contreras et al., 2019). These artifacts act as organizational imprints created by the founder generation and carried on by subsequent generations and non-family members (Pieper et al., 2015). Drawing on a role-based view of the family, Aldrich et al. (2021, p. 1006) explain how founders imprint their organizations with a particular “blueprint” prescribing “how the organization should look and feel, including the way employment relations are organized, and personnel are managed.” Such imprints are exceptionally effective, as illustrated by Yu and Kwan (2015) who demonstrate that secondhand imprinting sustains the imprinting of founder values across several generations of Lee Kum Kee, a Chinese family business in the sauce industry for 125 years.
While organizational arrangements and practices are involved in the circulation of founder legacy, their contribution is acknowledged as more significant for the transmission of family legacy (e.g., Wielsma & Brunninge, 2019) and family firm legacy (e.g., Asaba & Wada, 2019). The company’s organizational culture, structure, and strategy enable the family business to face challenging situations and crises successfully. Informal, “simple rules” (Pieper et al., 2015, p. 1314) allow the mutual monitoring of family and business decisions across generations. Arrangements and practices relative to succession planning and execution (Au et al., 2013), the management of assets and control (Fernández-Roca & López-Manjón, 2021), and organizational routines and structure (Akroyd & Kober, 2020) protect family firm legacy and ensure its survival throughout generations. Yet, these arrangements and practices are not always beneficial to legacy receivers. For instance, such informal rules “that steer decision-making but are not codified in corporate law, a firm’s articles of association, shareholders’ agreements or other codes of conduct” (Sievinen et al., 2020, p. 105) may lead to organizational inertia and stagnation. Informal rules can impede firm renewal and product innovation (Cucculelli et al., 2016) or, as illustrated by Akhter et al. (2016), trigger an escalation of commitment in family firms who might prefer shutting down satellite businesses to maintain their legacy instead of growing the company. Moreover, when such informal rules are not formalized, a risk exists for family firms to lose their family legacy simply by forgetting it; rules, procedures, and processes are conceptualized as symbolic artifacts of legacy. Indeed, as evidenced by the case of FamilyRetail, a service-oriented, 120-year-old family firm, the absence of a formalized legacy hindered the firm’s innovation capacity and survival despite the high emotional attachment of family members to the business (Szymanska et al., 2019, p. 442).
Secondary socialization is the business mechanism most involved in transmitting entrepreneurial legacy. In this case, family firms are unique places of intergenerational learning, helping the next generation and employees internalize mandated values at the heart of entrepreneurial legacy (e.g., Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2018). This enables them to learn how things should be done through tradition. Such learning also requires mentoring and coaching by long-term family and non-family members, which is the second most important mechanism for sharing entrepreneurial legacy (e.g., Buckman et al., 2019).
While these mechanisms highlight the importance of verbal artifacts for legacy building, interpretation, and use, limited understanding exists regarding the role of visual artifacts such as photos, films, or paintings as legacy vehicles. This is surprising as visual artifacts proliferate in family and business spheres. More efforts are needed to uncover their relation to legacy (e.g., Bryant, 2014). Physical assets are only studied within the business sphere, although individuals unanimously recognize the importance of their hometown or family house as part of their ancestors’ legacy. Conversely, the acknowledged importance of verbal artifacts suggests that more research is needed to understand the interplay of legacy and communication at dyadic, family, and organizational levels. Yet, except Micelotta and Raynard (2011), no other studies address legacy from a communication perspective.
In Which Context?
As rightfully emphasized by Chang et al. (2021, p. 1201), legacy “means different things to different people who have different cultural, educational, and experiential backgrounds; different personalities; and different demographic characteristics.” Three main categories of contexts are addressed within our sample, namely the family business, the industry, and the country. After deduplication checks, the primary family business context of legacy is succession (n = 37), followed by innovation (n = 21) and, to a lesser extent, strategic management (n = 16), transgenerational entrepreneurship (n = 14), and internationalization (n = 6). Legacy is mainly examined in low-tech industries (n = 91), followed by high-tech industries (n = 50). At the country level, legacy is primarily studied in established economies (n = 83) and, to a much lesser extent, in emerging economies (n = 34); the cultural context (n = 27) and the institutional context (n = 19) are seldom considered by the texts in our corpus.
Family Business
Succession is the most studied context of founder legacy (n = 12), family legacy (n = 17), and family firm legacy (n = 5). Differently, entrepreneurial legacy is mainly studied in the context of transgenerational entrepreneurship (n = 11). See Table 3.
Succession is a key event in the life of family firms, when past and present intersect, and successors are expected to act as reliable receivers of legacy at the head of the company. However, during succession, the willingness of legacy senders to honor and preserve the past might clash with the successors’ efforts to construct their identity and future (Miller et al., 2003). Succession might, therefore, lead successors to accept founder legacy, family legacy, and family firm legacy when the value of legacy is seen as an asset or to reject legacy when its value is perceived as a liability (Sieger & Minola, 2017). The tension between continuity and change at the heart of legacy is also visible in the context of innovation when the next generation might decide to either favor continuity by enacting innovation through tradition (Seuneke et al., 2013) or to engage with change by reframing founder legacy (Mustafa et al., 2019) and family legacy (Szymanska et al., 2019). Strategic management (e.g., Drakopoulou Dodd et al., 2013) and internationalization (Ranfagni et al., 2021; Zaefarian et al., 2016) invite an even more bold transformation of legacy, particularly when strategic renewal is at stake (Sievinen et al., 2020).
Although succession is also examined in relation to entrepreneurial legacy, the primary context where entrepreneurial legacy is built, interpreted, and used is transgenerational entrepreneurship (Calabrò et al., 2023; Zellweger et al., 2012). Living, learning, and working together in an intergenerational space enable the next generation to develop an entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial skills, which might be used in the family business and beyond (Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2021).
Industry
Most of the texts in our sample focus on founder legacy (n = 22), family legacy (n = 51), and family firm legacy (n = 17) in companies operating in low-tech industries such as wine (e.g., Canovi et al., 2023), brewing (e.g., Bower, 2018), fishing and retail (e.g., Cunningham & McGuire, 2019), craft (e.g., Erdogan et al., 2020), food (e.g., Diaz-Moriana et al., 2020), the olive oil industry (e.g., Ge et al., 2022), or the monastic sector (e.g., Keplinger et al., 2016) and much less often in companies operating in high-tech industries such as information technology and communication (e.g., Erçek & Günçavdı, 2016; see Table 3). This suggests that legacy often matters for industries and firms where age is an asset—wineries, liquor, sake, and designer goods. However, as evidenced by studies taking a liability perspective, legacy might also lead to detrimental effects in these contexts. For instance, going against the general perception of family firm legacy as an asset, Sieger and Minola (2017) show that because reciprocity demands and market principles might interfere in family firms, this may negatively affect the performance of the next generation’s new ventures.
Differently, entrepreneurial legacy is depicted as characterizing both low-tech industries (n = 10) and high-tech industries (n = 9) such as media (e.g., Powers & Zhao, 2019; see Table 3). This suggests that entrepreneurial legacy matters for all kinds of industries, not only for firms operating in sectors where age is an asset. Entrepreneurial legacy may impede rather than encourage entrepreneurial initiatives in the present. Taking a situated learning theory perspective, Seuneke et al. (2013) illustrate the detrimental effects of legacy during the transition from production-oriented to multifunctional farming in the Netherlands. The farm context, characterized by a “conservative mentality” (p. 210), productivity path dependencies, and a priority given to survival instead of growth, restricts rather than encourages the next generation’s initiatives to develop new activities.
Country
Established economies are the primary country context in which founder legacy (n = 24), family legacy (n = 43), and family firm legacy (n = 16) are studied. Within the context of established economies, only family firms belonging to the majority group in the society are examined; little attention is given to minority-led family businesses, with the notable exception of Cunningham and McGuire (2019) who emphasize the influence of the country of origin on family legacy. This highlights the overrepresentation of the Global North and the limited investigation of emerging economies as an important, understudied legacy context. Uniquely, entrepreneurial legacy is equally explored in established economies (n = 10) and emerging economies (n = 10); see Table 3.
While all the empirical studies in our corpus specify their country context, less than half analyze its cultural characteristics and their role in shaping legacy in family business (cultural context, n = 27; after deduplication checks). These texts depict family firms as embedded within a larger cultural context which infuses legacy with prevailing cultural norms (e.g., Basco et al., 2019), beliefs, expectations, and religious traditions (e.g., Alrubaishi et al., 2021a).
Similarly, very few studies address the role of the institutional context (n = 19) in legacy building, interpretation, and use (after deduplication checks). Those studies that focus on this important dimension of the social and economic life of family firms emphasize the impact of tax regulations, which can either facilitate or hinder the transmission of legacy across generations (e.g., Cao et al., 2015). For instance, in their study of regional continuity and development of entrepreneurial families, Martínez-Sanchis et al. (2022) advance the notions of cultural, political, and structural embeddedness to account for the moderating role of cultural and institutional contexts on legacy. Taking an embeddedness perspective, Martínez-Sanchis et al. (2022) show that “through heritage and wealth taxes (. . .) family members can preserve or lose the family economic legacy across generations.” The authors depict tax systems as an aspect of the political embeddedness of family firms, arguing that a demanding tax system—such as those currently in Spain, France, or the United States—negatively affects the sustainability of family firms. Similarly, in a Swedish context, Bjuggren and Sund (2005) demonstrate the significant consequences of abolishing the gift and inheritance tax and its impact on succession arrangements regarding ownership transfer. The relevance of cultural and institutional contexts is yet rarely considered in emerging countries, as evidenced in a study on the impact of the one-child policy on succession (Cao et al., 2015).
Overall, we can see from the articles in the corpus that the “where” of legacy is recognized in some of the articles on aspects of culture and institutions, but this needs a stronger emphasis if we are to move away from Global North cultures, as culture might, indeed, play a significant influence on the “who,” “why” and “how” of legacy.
A Unified Process Model of Legacy Co-Construction and a Future Research Agenda
We summarize the findings of our systematic literature review within a unified process model of legacy co-construction in family business (Figure 1). This process model highlights the ongoing actions of building, interpreting, and using legacy performed by senders and receivers, each characterized by specific motivations for sending and, respectively, accepting or rejecting legacy. The legacy-building process depicted in Figure 1 shows legacy senders as the source of legacy and positions legacy receivers as its endpoint. Legacy receivers also exert their agency when interpreting and using legacy to achieve objectives stemming from their motivations. The legacy interpretation and use process depicted in Figure 1 shows this change in the directionality of agency, now rooted within legacy receivers who act upon it by making sense of the past to reach their goals in the present. Thus, legacy receivers are far from being passive; instead, receivers actively interpret, reconstruct, and mobilize legacy in ways sometimes convergent with the intentions of the senders—for instance, when implementing a strategy of innovation through tradition (e.g., Asaba & Wada, 2019; Lee & Shin, 2015); other times, the use of legacy by actors in the present diverge from the intentions of legacy senders—for instance, when conducting strategic renewal (e.g., Bower, 2018).
Therefore, because legacy requires both senders and receivers, mutually dependent for enacting legacy over time, we consider the process of legacy building, interpretation, and use as a co-construction and not as a linear, unidirectional process with fixed roles and meanings. Figure 1 points to the distinct family mechanisms, business mechanisms, and vehicles (artifacts) that make possible the co-construction of legacy. Moreover, different levels of contexts also play a role in the co-construction of legacy within the family business and beyond, as evidenced in Figure 1. In addition, by indicating the number of articles per category, the process model offers a comprehensive overview of legacy in family business research and highlights where our knowledge of legacy is insufficiently developed.
Drawing on the critical appraisal of the 140 texts in our sample, we now suggest a future research agenda enabling scholars to extend current knowledge on legacy in family business. To do so, we build upon our five overarching questions to identify ten gaps in the literature and suggest 25 research questions that might guide further inquiry (see Table 4).
Future Research Agenda: Gaps, Topics, Theories, and Research Questions.
What Is Legacy?
As shown in Table 3, current research is dominated by a positive understanding of legacy as an asset beneficial for individuals, families, and organizations. Most of the studies taking an asset perspective focus on family legacy, which is twice as many compared with founder legacy and family firm legacy. Additional research is needed to uncover the benefits of founder legacy and family firm legacy as assets (Gap 1). Moreover, because current research overestimates the favorable aspects of legacy as an asset, limited knowledge exists concerning legacy as a liability or a paradox, triggering negative or ambivalent consequences. Regarding legacy as a liability, while extant studies disclose some of the negative effects of founder and family legacy, we lack empirical investigations of the negative aspects of family firm legacy and entrepreneurial legacy (Gap 2). Regarding legacy as a paradox, extant studies mostly focus on family legacy and less on founder and family firm legacies; we thus lack empirical investigations of the ambivalent, dual effects of entrepreneurial legacy (Gap 3).
The necessary step to address these gaps is to advance our current understanding of the nature of legacy. Several legacy definitions exist in family business scholarship, most depicting a particular type of legacy (e.g., Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Keplinger et al., 2016) or focusing on certain legacy dimensions (e.g., Hammond et al., 2016). A holistic understanding of legacy requires the recognition of both social and material-artifactual aspects of legacy, as previously stated by Hammond et al. (2016). Yet, we also need to theorize legacy’s dynamic, ongoing co-construction over time. Indeed, our review highlights a kaleidoscopic understanding of legacy as constantly re-configured in interaction and comprising not only cognitive aspects but also emotional, moral (perceived obligations and duties), and identity-related dimensions. This holistic understanding of legacy fits the situated cognition paradigm, which considers cognition as primarily driven by action goals, embodied, and socially shaped (Smith & Semin, 2004). To encourage this holistic conceptualization of legacy, we propose the following definition:
In family business, legacy is a co-constructed process by which motivated legacy senders and receivers build, interpret, and use values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs from the past by either acting on them directly or through the mediation of verbal, symbolic, physical, and visual artifacts, in a particular family business, industry, and country context.
Because legacy is only possible as much as there is a memory of the past, a second necessary step to bridge these three gaps would be to leverage relevant theories such as autobiographical memory (Fivush, 2011), collective memory (Halbwachs, 1980), and rhetorical history (Suddaby et al., 2010). These theories distinguish between legacy building and legacy interpretation and use. For instance, the works of Fivush (2011) might help research legacy related to autobiographical memory, both at the sender and receiver levels. Her social–cultural model depicts autobiographical memory as an overarching life narrative of memories of past experiences endowed with specific social and cultural aspects. Using autobiographical memory theory may allow us to uncover the origin and effects of enduring memories as legacy components, revealing which memories help legacy senders and receivers make sense of the world and give meaning to their lives at an individual and collective levels (RQ1), particularly when confronted to natural disasters or economic crises (RQ2).
Most legacy types are genuinely collective in their genesis and use, yet limited knowledge exists about the collective nature of legacy in families and organizations. The notion of collective memory (Halbwachs, 1980) could be extremely useful in family business. In their study on organizational memory, Rowlinson et al. (2010) describe this type of memory as socially constructed and made available in verbal artifacts such as reports, media publications, as well as in symbolic artifacts such as celebrations and physical artifacts such as commemorative buildings and products, enabling employees to make sense of their organization (RQ3). The perception of legacy changes over time, and groups such as the next generation continuously re-construct their family business’ beginnings to build or contest their collective identity, which might affect their entrepreneurial intentions (RQ4). Legacy studies need to integrate a deeper understanding of human memory, remembering being a conscious experience (Tulving, 1985) taking place over time: “we make history, and we make histories, because we are historical” (Ricoeur, 2004, p. 284).
With a few exceptions (Lubinski & Gartner, 2023; Manelli et al., 2023; McAdam et al., 2023), the theory of rhetorical history is not fully infused in family business research (Suddaby et al., 2023). Suddaby et al. (2010, p. 157) characterize rhetorical history as the “strategic use of the past as a persuasive strategy to manage key stakeholders of the firm.” This perspective advances an interpretive understanding of legacy building and use through rhetorical practices aimed at celebrating a glorious past or enacting resistance (Aeon & Lamertz, 2021), which might trigger emotional ambivalence in successors (RQ5) as well as strategic hesitations in family firms in relation to the use of legacy (RQ6). This perspective might be well-suited for the legacy as a liability and paradox perspectives.
Who Sends and Receives Legacy?
The texts in our corpus unanimously acknowledge the founder and the senior generation as the main senders of legacy, while other senders are largely understudied (Gap 4). To address this gap in understanding, future studies should better consider other legacy senders that might preserve and share a legacy they did not initially build. For instance, spouses, grandparents, and other relatives might be exceptional legacy keepers yet very rarely investigated as senders or receivers of legacy. Moreover, many family businesses are often started by spousal pairs (e.g., Fang et al., 2021), and silent spouses may play significant invisible roles in building and interpreting legacies (Mathias & Wang, 2023). As suggested by Fivush (2011), mothers play a primary developmental role in supporting the development of the autobiographical memory of children. So far, we know little about how their contribution may play out in everyday situations, such as the transmission of the entrepreneurial spirit to offspring, or dramatic circumstances, such as securing founder legacy after death (RQ7). Similarly, we know little about how the dominant coalition leverages legacy to address organizational goals and exhibit resilience in situations of market threat or natural disasters (RQ8). Organizations engage with memorialization practices to celebrate legacy as an asset, yet limited knowledge exists on how organizations deliberately engage with re-shaping the meaning of negative legacies to strengthen organizational survival or change organizational identity, which might be relevant for strengthening our understanding of legacy as a liability or a paradox (Lubinski & Gartner, 2023). Conversely, the next generation is identified as the primary legacy receiver, while successors, employees, and customers are less often highlighted as receivers of legacy (Gap 5). To address this gap in understanding, future research should better combine the succession and legacy literature as well as organizational identity and legacy research to explore more in-depth legacy in relation to receivers such as employees (RQ9) and customers (RQ10). This might help uncover legacy’s enabling and constraining effects on successor decisions and behavior and elucidate the effects of legacy on organizational members, customers, and regions.
Novel theorizing is required to understand legacy dynamics and reveal the discontinuities of legacy building, interpretation, and use. We suggest social exchange theory as a fruitful arena to enhance current knowledge of legacy co-construction. Social exchange theory conceptualizes social interactions as an exchange of rewards and costs not limited to tangible goods but also of other kinds of intangible resources, such as approval and prestige within and across family boundaries (Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1925). Power in social exchanges lies with those individuals who possess greater resources or a greater capacity to reward (Maccoby, 2002), such as legacy senders. These findings confirmed in the context of family business succession (Daspit et al., 2016) suggest social and material aspects of legacy as contents of social exchange practices. However, social exchange theory has rarely been applied in relation to legacy.
Why is Legacy Sent and Accepted/Rejected?
The motivations of legacy senders and receivers are primarily identity-related. Generativity and emotional attachment are considered half as often as motivations for sharing legacy compared with identity maintenance (Gap 6). This suggests the existence of a desirability bias in the study of legacy motivations: We only have access to the declared motives for sharing legacy, and senders frame these motives in a self-serving light. To address this gap in understanding, three relevant theories might be applied to uncover less investigated motivations: generativity theory, stewardship theory, and socioemotional wealth theory. Generativity theory (Erikson, 1950) might help scholars understand why legacy is built as part of a natural psychological developmental process, leading adults to a desire to leave a legacy while considering their impermanence. So far, generativity has been used as a theoretical lens for understanding the motivations of founders (RQ11), but this motivation may be common to other legacy senders, such as the senior generation or the dominant coalition; they too might be motivated by a need for generativity, which might trigger a drive to build and share legacy, particularly before retirement or during family business succession.
Stewardship theory (Davis et al., 2010) focuses on the alignment between the owners of wealth and those who manage it. While agency theory assumes non-alignment between principal(s) and their agent(s) and prescribes monitoring and control to curb agency costs resulting from agent opportunism (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), stewardship theory argues the possibility that principal(s) and their agent(s) may be aligned. No study has explicitly examined how legacy fits within this theoretical framework (RQ12). Legacy senders are also motivated by their emotional attachment to the family and the organization, as suggested by the socioemotional wealth theory (Gomez-Mehija et al., 2007). In this perspective, non-economic returns to the family, such as reputation in the community, family influence, family identity, and perpetuation of the family, are perceived as more important than material heritage. This theoretical perspective might enhance our understanding of legacy as an asset but may also help us understand why legacy might become a liability when senders constrain innovation, strategic management, and strategic renewal to protect their social legacy, even if that may hurt financial wealth and returns to the family (RQ13).
While moral obligation, emotional attachment, and belonging are the main motivations leading legacy receivers to accept or reject legacy, identity construction and legitimacy are more rarely identified as a reasons for accepting or rejecting legacy (Gap 7). The limited amount of studies focusing on these motivations indirectly explains why so few studies approach legacy as a liability (RQ14). Indeed, identity construction and legitimacy might lead legacy receivers to reject rather than accept legacy (e.g., Kidwell et al., 2018). To address this gap in research, we need novel theoretical approaches to legacy, such as intrapreneurship theory and emancipation theory. Intrapreneurship theory (Pinchot, 1985) is rarely used in our corpus, generally through the lens of corporate venturing (e.g., Minola et al., 2021). However, intrapreneurship is a more encompassing notion, using all forms of entrepreneurship within existing organizations, including strategic renewal, corporate venturing, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). This theoretical lens might help us better understand phenomena such as transgenerational entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial legacy, revealing why legacy might be leveraged as an organizational asset in certain situations or rejected because of the perceived risk of organizational inertia and failure (RQ15). While intrapreneurship studies could fit organizational-level investigations, the emancipation theory developed by the Frankfurt school (e.g., Marcuse, 2013) may fit situations of legacy rejection or ambivalence at the individual and family levels. This theory, originally developed in moral philosophy (Adorno, 1991), might support the investigation of the reasons conducting legacy receivers to resist the normative pressure or power carried on by legacy senders (RQ16).
Methodologically, a historical approach to exploring legacy is required. To implement this approach, scholars need to access contemporaneous information about what legacy senders were doing in the past. Much of the research on legacy involves retrospective views of what senders in the past intended as legacies that impact receivers in the present. It would be valuable to gain insights into what legacy senders intended when they decided to pass a legacy forward.
How Is Legacy Sent and Received?
Primary socialization is the main family mechanism enabling legacy sharing, followed by strategic education. Role modeling, firsthand imprinting, and family storytelling are less often investigated as family mechanisms involved in legacy building, interpretation, and use (Gap 8). In parallel, secondary socialization and organizational arrangements and practices are largely acknowledged as the main business mechanisms involved in the co-construction of legacy. We know less about secondhand imprinting, mentoring, coaching, knowledge storing and codification, and strategic storytelling within the family business (Gap 9). To bridge the gap relative to family mechanisms, scholars might use social learning theory (Bandura, 1969) and career development theory (Super, 1990). Indeed, social learning theory and career development theory emphasize the importance of family and parental role models for the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Wang et al., 2018) and the choice of an entrepreneurial career (Mungai & Velamuri, 2011). Future research should address parenting styles and their effect on subsequent offspring behaviors (RQ17). As our review indicates, there are instances where the receiver does not continue in the sender’s business but engages in entrepreneurial activity (Combs et al., 2023). What a legacy is for subsequent generations not involved in the family business yet acting entrepreneurially in other ways requires further exploration (RQ18). Such studies would be beneficial for better understanding how legacy is co-constructed within the family and the business and with what effects on the next generation’s cognitions, emotions, and behavior (RQ19)
To address the gaps relative to family and business mechanisms, scholars might also use imprinting theory (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013). This multilevel theory could help reveal how parents and the senior generation facilitate or impede legacy co-construction within the family and uncover how imprinting happens with employees and customers (see Sinha et al., 2020). Mentoring and coaching by parents, the senior generation, or the dominant coalition might also shed light on how successors develop their leadership and legitimacy by embracing or rejecting past legacies through imprinting (RQ20). We know that legacy is reflected in organizational strategy, brand, and market position. The strategy literature (Rumelt, 1995) and organizational ecology literature (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) describe strategic inertia as a situation in which an established business rigidly adheres to its strategy, market position, brand, and thinking even when market dynamics call for change. Rumelt (1995) called inertia the lack of organizational plasticity. Because legacy structures, procedures, and processes may lead to organizational inertia, it may be difficult for a business to alter its established routines to monitor and enforce opportunities necessary to correct them because this might affect legacy. Research is needed to determine how businesses break or modify legacy by leveraging on visual and symbolic artifacts to succeed in dynamic markets and overcome damaging stakeholder relations and toxic governance, thus playing against organizational imprinting, and engaging with strategic re-imprinting (RQ21). Moreover, the sense-making theory developed by Weick (1979) could enhance our current understanding of the role of storytelling concerning legacy (RQ22).
These theoretical lenses invite scholars to leverage methodologies rarely used today to uncover these mechanisms, such as visual analysis, ethnography, and conversational analysis.
In Which Context?
Research on legacy typically investigates firms located in established economies and low-tech industries, while our knowledge of high-tech industries and emerging economies as legacy contexts is still limited; this goes together with the partial attention devoted to legacy’s cultural and institutional contexts (Gap 10). To address this gap in understanding, we need to focus on these less investigated settings (RQ23) to explore and theorize legacy in relation to place, culture, and religion (e.g., Discua Cruz et al., 2021). Institutional theory (Greenwood et al., 2017), embeddedness theory (Granovetter, 2018), and network theory (Burt, 1980; Granovetter, 1973) might help understand the processes of legacy building, interpretation, and use as collective phenomena occurring in time and space, in relation with others. Entrepreneurship studies have long integrated these theoretical lenses empirically. The time has come for the family business field to engage with place theorizing in relation to legacy. For instance, institutional theory might draw attention to the regulatory conditions influencing who receives legacy and under which legal conditions might impact business survival and growth. This theory may enable discovering why people with different religious beliefs endow legacy with different contents and share legacy through different mechanisms and practices.
Embeddedness theory could help understand how legacies are established, maintained, modified, or abandoned in relation to place. Scholars might leverage history methodologies (Decker et al., 2021) that might help uncover how legacy is co-constructed over time under the influence of generational changes and local culture. Documenting the situated process of legacy building, interpretation, and use might be done through process fieldwork (e.g., De Massis et al., 2016) that surveys families across larger time periods.
Finally, current research seldom examines legacy in contexts such as migrant, refugee, and women entrepreneurship (RQ24). Network theory might enable researchers to investigate legacy within different family structures, involving kin and larger networks than the nuclear family, which might reveal the practices of connecting and disconnecting from prior ways of doing things to build distinct identities and ensure firm survival. Moreover, gender theory (e.g., Butler, 2002; Marlow, 2020) might help explore how legacy senders and receivers engage with cultural norms relative to gender when co-constructing legacy to achieve their goals (RQ25). We surmise that to address the complexity of these multiple contextual dimensions affecting legacy, there might be value in considering a contingency theory orientation (Donaldson, 2001; Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985) that might result in various legacy configurations (Miller, 2018) involving all aspects of our process model in various formulations.
Summary
If, by one definition, we consider legacy from the perspective of the sender to be “a way to establish your values or accomplishments to help others find future success” (Nash & Stevenson, 2004, p. 104), then the study of legacy is critical for understanding how the past influences others to find future success and how a legacy created now can influence and create success in the future. Legacy is the invisible hand within the family business that ties the past with the present and future. Legacies are not intended for a particular moment in time but to live across time. Whether a legacy is useful or valuable in the present or future depends on whether what is given is received, utilized, and valued. We believe that a fundamental perspective in family business studies is that the scope of inquiry lies beyond legacy senders who build a legacy to consider legacy receivers who remember, challenge, transform, or even reject it. Legacy is fundamentally relational and purposeful, encompassing legacy building, interpretation and use over time. In the end, to be a family is to co-create legacies.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Full Sample of the 140 Articles Included in the Review.
| Article | Type of paper | Theory | Method | Unit of analysis | Role of the legacy variable | Type of legacy | What is legacy? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Achtenhagen et al. (2022) | Conceptual | Career Management Theory | Interviews (15 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Ahmad Tipu (2023) | Conceptual | N/A | Systematic literature review (52 articles) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Akhter et al. (2016) | Conceptual | Social Identity Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Akroyd & Kober (2020) | Conceptual | Imprinting Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Aldrich et al. (2021) | Conceptual | Role-based View of Families | N/A | Family | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Alrubaishi et al. (2021a) | Conceptual | Imprinting Theory | Case study (10 case studies) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Alrubaishi et al. (2021b) | Conceptual | Social Capital Theory | Case study (10 case studies) | Family | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Ano & Bent (2022) | Conceptual | Resource-based Theory | Case study (5 case studies) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Arikan et al. (2022) | Conceptual | Dynamic Capabilities Theory | Case study (5 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Asaba & Wada (2019) | Conceptual | Innovation Management Theory | Panel data analysis (39 firms) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Au et al. (2013) | Conceptual | Resource-based Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Banchik (2019) | Conceptual | Gender Theory | Interviews (32 interviews) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Barbera et al. (2018) | Conceptual | Imprinting Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Barrett & Moores (2020) | Conceptual | Paradox Theory | N/A | Family; Business | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Barros et al. (2016) | Conceptual | Dynamic Capabilities Theory | N/A | Family; Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Basco et al. (2019) | Conceptual | Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory | Survey (586 participants) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Bates & Goodsell (2013) | Conceptual | Generativity Theory | Interviews (14 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Beck et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Family Firm Branding Theory | Interviews (11 interviews); Survey (196 participants) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Bennedsen et al. (2021) | Conceptual | Performance Theory | Panel data analysis (publicly listed firms in Japan from 1955 to 2000) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Bergfeld & Bergfeld (2022) | Empirical | Identity Theory | Interviews (38 interviews); Focus groups (1 focus group) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Bika et al. (2019) | Conceptual | Socialization Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Bjuggren & Sund (2005) | Conceptual | Institutional Theory | N/A | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Botero et al. (2022) | Conceptual | Knowledge Sharing Theory | Survey (93 participants) | Family | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Bower (2018) | Conceptual | Evolutionary Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Brinkerink & Bammens (2018) | Conceptual | Identity Theory; Social Identity Theory | Survey (365 participants) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Bryant (2014) | Conceptual | Imprinting Theory | N/A | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Buckman et al. (2019) | Conceptual | Succession Planning Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Burton & Beckman (2007) | Conceptual | Role Theory | Panel data analysis (1,461 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Burton et al. (2022) | Conceptual | Stewardship Theory | Case study (12 case studies) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Cabrera-Suárez et al. (2018) | Empirical | Knowledge Construction Theory | N/A | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Canovi et al. (2023) | Empirical | Role Identity Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Cao et al. (2015) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | Survey (4912 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Carney et al. (2014) | Empirical | Inheritance Law Theory | N/A | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Carr et al. (2016) | Empirical | N/A | N/A | Family; Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Chang et al. (2021) | Empirical | Entrepreneurial Legacy Theory | Interviews (12 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| S.-J. Chang & Shim (2015) | Empirical | Performance Theory; Socioemotional Wealth Theory | Panel data analysis (2109 firms) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Cherchem (2017) | Empirical | Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory | Survey (106 participants) | Business | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Chlosta et al. (2012) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory | Survey (461 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Combs et al. (2023) | Empirical | Entrepreneurial Legacy Theory | Case study (13 case studies) | Family | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Cucculelli et al. (2016) | Empirical | Socioemotional Wealth Theory | Survey (220 participants) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Cunningham & McGuire (2019) | Empirical | Family Systems Theory; Embeddedness Theory | Interviews (14 interviews) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Cunningham et al. (2016) | Empirical | Path-goal Theory | Interviews (26 interviews); Survey (110 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| De Massis et al. (2016) | Empirical | Dynamic Capabilities Theory; Knowledge Search Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Deb et al. (2022) | Empirical | Cultural Entrepreneurship theory | Focus group (10 participants); Survey (325 participants) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Della Corte et al. (2018) | Empirical | Knowledge Search Theory | Case study (3 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Diaz-Moriana et al. (2020) | Empirical | Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Theory | Case study (5 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Discua Cruz et al. (2021) | Empirical | Social Systems Theory | Case study (4 case studies) | Family | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Dou & Li (2013) | Empirical | Social Capital Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Family | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Dou et al. (2021) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Family | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Drakopoulou Dodd et al. (2013) | Empirical | Heidegger’s Philosophy of Time | Case study (12 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Durán et al. (2016) | Empirical | Agency Theory; Precautionary Motive Theory; Trade-off Theory | Panel data analysis (1,569 firms) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Ellis et al. (2017) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Panel data analysis (443 firms) | Business | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Erçek & Günçavdı (2016) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Erdogan et al. (2020) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (8 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Eze et al. (2021) | Empirical | Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Fang et al. (2021) | Empirical | Behavioral Theory of the Firm | Panel data analysis (798 firms) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Fernández-Roca & López-Manjón (2021) | Empirical | Family Business System Model | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Ferri & Takahashi (2021) | Empirical | Organizational Identity Theory | Case study (15 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Fox & Wade-Benzoni (2017) | Empirical | Generativity Theory | N/A | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Ge et al. (2022) | Empirical | Family Entrepreneurship Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Giacosa et al. (2017) | Empirical | Innovation Management Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Gregersen & Black (2002) | Empirical | N/A | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Hammond et al. (2016) | Empirical | Sense-making Theory | N/A | Family; Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Hernandez-Perlines et al. (2021) | Empirical | Dynamic Capabilities Theory | Survey (106 participants) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Hoffmann et al. (2021) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory | Panel data analysis (592,846 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Holt et al. (2017) | Empirical | Family Firm Theory | N/A | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Hradský & Sadílek (2020) | Empirical | Generation Theory | Interviews (31 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Igwe, Madichie, & Amoncar (2020) | Empirical | Social Capital Theory | Interviews (25 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Igwe, Newbery, et al. (2020) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory | Interviews (50 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Ingram et al. (2016) | Empirical | Paradox Theory | Survey (pilot survey: 63 participants; survey: 178 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Jaskiewicz, Combs, et al. (2016) | Empirical | N/A | N/A | Individual; Family; Business | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Jaskiewicz et al. (2015) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (21 case studies) | Family | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Jaskiewicz, Lutz, & Godwin (2016) | Empirical | Socioemotional Wealth Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Joosse & Grubbström (2017) | Empirical | Socialization Theory | Interviews (9 interviews); Focus group (13 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Kammerlander et al. (2015) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (41 case studies) | Individual; Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Keplinger et al. (2016) | Empirical | Accountability Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Kidwell et al. (2018) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | N/A | Family; Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Kiong (2005) | Empirical | Social Capital Theory | Case study (3 case studies) | Family; Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Konopaski et al. (2015) | Empirical | Situated-learning Theory | Interviews (18 interviews) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| LeCounte (2022) | Empirical | Upper Echelon Theory | N/A | Individual | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Lee & Shin (2015) | Empirical | Storytelling Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Leroy et al. (2015) | Empirical | Theory of Planned Behavior | Survey (175 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Litz & Kleysen (2001) | Empirical | Theory of Family Firm Innovation | N/A | Family | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Ljungkvist & Boers (2019) | Empirical | Psychological Ownership Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual; Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Llanos-Contreras et al. (2019) | Empirical | Socioemotional Wealth Theory; Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory | Case study (3 case studies) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Lorandini (2015) | Empirical | Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family; Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Lumpkin et al. (2008) | Empirical | Family Systems Theory | N/A | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Lundberg & Öberg (2021) | Empirical | Embeddedness Theory | Case study (5 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Mackie (2022) | Empirical | Family-centered Approach (History) | Content analysis (testamentary records) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Maclean et al. (2015) | Empirical | Narrative Identity Theory | Interviews (20 interviews) | Individual | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Magistretti et al. (2020) | Empirical | Innovation Management Theory | Case study (2 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Marques et al. (2022) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Individual | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Martínez-Sanchis et al. (2022) | Empirical | Embeddedness Theory | Interviews (25 interviews) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| McAdams (2006) | Empirical | Generativity Theory | N/A | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Memili et al. (2018) | Empirical | Socioemotional Wealth Theory | Survey (195 participants) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Micelotta & Raynard (2011) | Empirical | Corporate Identity Theory | Content analysis (company websites) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Miller et al. (2016) | Empirical | N/A | N/A | Family; Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Millová et al. (2021) | Empirical | Generativity Theory | Survey (123 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Minola et al. (2021) | Empirical | Corporate Entrepreneurship Theory | N/A | Individual; Family; Business | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Mitchell et al. (2011) | Empirical | Stakeholder Theory | N/A | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Morais-Storz et al. (2018) | Empirical | Organizational Resilience Theory | N/A | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Mungai & Velamuri (2011) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory; Career Development Theory | Panel data analysis (3,383 participants) | Family | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Murithi et al. (2020) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | N/A | Family | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Mustafa et al. (2019) | Empirical | Situated-learning Theory; Social Role Theory | Case study (2 case studies) | Individual | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Newton et al. (2020) | Empirical | Generativity Theory | Survey (204 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Pérez & Puig (2004) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | N/A | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Pieper et al. (2015) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (5 case studies) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Vincent-Ponroy et al. (2019) | Empirical | Organizational Identity Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Powers & Zhao (2019) | Empirical | Organizational Ecology Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Radu-Lefebvre et al. (2022) | Empirical | Entrepreneurship as Emancipation Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Ramírez-Pasillas et al. (2021) | Empirical | Practice Theory | Case study (2 case studies) | Individual | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Ranfagni et al. (2021) | Empirical | Territorial Identity Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Redding (1995) | Empirical | Social Capital Theory | N/A | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Rondi et al. (2019) | Empirical | Innovation Management Theory | Case study (3 case studies); Interviews (N/A) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Roscoe et al. (2013) | Empirical | Actor-network Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Rutherford & Kuratko (2016) | Empirical | N/A | N/A | Family | N/A | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Salvato et al. (2010) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Sasaki et al. (2020) | Empirical | Organizational Identity Theory | Case study (25 case studies) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Seuneke et al. (2013) | Empirical | Situated-learning Theory | Case study (6 case studies) | Individual | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Sieger & Minola (2017) | Empirical | Theory of Planned Behavior; Embeddedness Theory | Survey (23,304 participants) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Sievinen et al. (2020) | Empirical | Institutional Action Theory | Case study (2 case studies) | Individual | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Sinha et al. (2020) | Empirical | Imprinting Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Steen & Welch (2006) | Empirical | Embeddedness Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family; Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Strike et al. (2015) | Empirical | Socioemotional Wealth Theory | Panel data analysis (264 firms) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Suddaby et al. (2015) | Empirical | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | FOUNDER LEGACY; ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Suddaby & Jaskiewicz (2020) | Empirical | Rhetorical History | N/A | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Szymanska et al. (2019) | Empirical | Knowledge Search Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Tarling et al. (2016) | Empirical | Social Learning Theory | Interviews (14 interviews) | Individual | Dependent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Vrontis et al. (2016) | Empirical | Innovation Management Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY; FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Wang et al. (2018) | Empirical | Theory of Planned Behavior; Social Learning Theory | Survey (131 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Welch & Welch (2009) | Empirical | Internationalization Theory | N/A | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Wielsma & Brunninge (2019) | Empirical | Organizational Identity Theory; Identity Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Individual; Family; Business | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Yacob (2012) | Empirical | Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY; FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Yoo et al. (2014) | Empirical | Identity Theory; Boundary Theory | Panel data analysis (1,776 firm-year observations) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS LIABILITY |
| Yu & Kwan (2015) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Business | Independent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS PARADOX |
| Zacher et al. (2012) | Empirical | Generativity Theory | Survey (155 participants) | Individual | Dependent variable | FAMILY FIRM LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Zaefarian et al. (2016) | Empirical | Opportunity Identification Theory | Case study (7 case studies) | Business | Independent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Zahra et al. (2007) | Empirical | Knowledge Sharing Theory | Survey (209 participants) | Business | Dependent variable | FOUNDER LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Zheng & Wan (2022) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Independent variable | ENTREPRENEURIAL LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
| Zheng & Wong (2016) | Empirical | Institutional Theory | Case study (1 case study) | Family | Dependent variable | FAMILY LEGACY | LEGACY AS ASSET |
Appendix B
Reviewed Articles Per Journal Per Year.
| 1995 | 2001 | 2002 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 15 | |||||||||||||||
| Family Business Review | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | |||||||||||
| Journal of Family Business Strategy | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Business History | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | |||||||||||||||
| Entrepreneurship & Regional Development | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Small Business Management | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Family Business Management | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| British Food Journal | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Management Studies | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Strategic Management Journal | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Academy of Management Perspectives | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Asia Pacific Journal of Management | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Human Resource Development International | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| International Business Review | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Business Research | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Business Venturing | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Knowledge Management | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Journal of Rural Studies | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Management & Organizational History | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Scandinavian Journal of Management | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Small Business Economics | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Others | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 39 | |||||||
| Total a | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 19 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 13 | 18 | 16 | 140 |
Note. Others: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Aging and Society, American Sociological Review, Baltic Journal of Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, Career Development International, Current Psychology, Education + Training, European Management Journal, Gender & Society, Global Business Review, Human Relations, Human Resource Management Review, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, International Sociology, Journal of Adult Development, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of East European Management Studies, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Journal of Strategy and Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Long Range Planning, Management & Organizational History, Management Accounting Research, Marriage & Family Review, Organization Studies, Research in Human Development, Research in Organizational Behavior, Service Business, Small Enterprise Research.
Denotes the total number of articles per sub-category; each article might encompass several codes within the same category.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
