Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5, 896-914 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 6 February 2025; Revised: 28 April 2025; Accepted: 2 May 2025; Published: 10 May 2025 * Correspondence: azekkar.younessx@gmail.com Financial and corporate governance determinants of dividend policy in family firms: A bibliometric analysis and future research agenda Younes Azekkar1*, Younes Taghouti2, Brahim Abidar3, Omar Boustta4, Khalid El Ouafa5 1Research Laboratory for Innovation, Responsibility, and Sustainable Development (INREDD), Faculty of Legal, Economic and Social Sciences, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; azekkar.younessx@gmail.com (Y.A.). 2National School of Business and Management, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco; younes.taghouti@gmail.com (Y.T.). 3Faculty of Legal, Economic and Social Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco, brahim.abidar@gmail.com (B.A.). 4Faculty of Legal, Economic and Social Sciences Ain Choc Casablanca, Hassan II University, Morocco; omarboussta10@gmail.com (O.B.). 5Research Laboratory for Innovation, Responsibility, and Sustainable Development (INREDD), Multidisciplinary Faculty of Safi, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco; kh_elo@yahoo.fr (K.E.O.). Abstract: This study conducts a systematic literature review of 63 peer-reviewed articles published between January 2008 and December 2023, sourced from the Scopus database, to examine the key determinants shaping dividend policies in family firms. The analysis reveals that financial factors, particularly profitability, leverage, and growth opportunities, serve as primary drivers of dividend decisions. In addition to these, non-financial determinants related to corporate governance, such as board independence, CEO duality, gender diversity, and board size, significantly influence dividend policy by mitigating agency conflicts and aligning the interests of controlling and minority shareholders. By integrating both financial and non-financial perspectives, the study offers a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted mechanisms that govern dividend strategies in family- owned enterprises. Furthermore, a bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer and RStudio to visualize the intellectual structure of the field, identify emerging research trends, and map scholarly collaborations. The findings provide critical insights for academics, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to strengthen governance frameworks and enhance financial decision-making within family business contexts. Keywords: Corporate governance determinants, Dividend policy, Family firms, Financial determinants, Systematic literature review. 1. Introduction Dividend distribution by family-owned businesses serves as a significant indicator of the benefits family owners seek from their enterprises. Some family firms prioritize rein-vestment over dividends, focusing on stewardship and ensuring the long-term sustaina-bility of the business [1]. Conversely, other family businesses may opt for higher dividend payouts to satisfy owners’ immediate financial interests and provide tangible returns [2]. From the perspective of agency theory, researchers argue that dividends play a critical role in reducing excess funds that controlling families might otherwise allocate for their own benefit at the expense of minority shareholders [3]. The dividend policies of family businesses have primarily been analyzed through the lens of family ownership and the extent of family participation in governance and man-agement [4]. Despite the progress in this area, the concentration or dis-persion of equity shares within the family has yet to receive adequate attention as a poten-tial determinant. Moreover, existing studies have largely focused on publicly listed com-panies, with limited exceptions [5]. This focus raises questions about the 897 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate generalizability of these findings to privately held family firms, where ownership is typically concentrated among family members [6]. In this vein, we argue that when ownership is more widely distributed among multi-ple family members, the firm is likely to encounter a more complex and diverse set of pri-orities [7]. Some family members may push for increased dividend payouts, particularly those who hold weaker emotional or strategic attachments to the business and instead favor immediate financial rewards [8]. Such prefer- ences can create tension within the ownership group, as differing goals and motivations may emerge. To mitigate or resolve conflicts among family members with relatively equal power or influence, firms may feel compelled to yield to demands for dividends, even when these payouts might not align with the firm's long-term strategic objectives [9]. While meeting dividend demands can ease tensions and promote short-term har-mony among family members, it comes at a cost. The allocation of resources to dividend payments reduces the funds available for critical activities such as business expansion, product enhancement, innovation, building organizational slack, rewarding employees, and addressing the interests of non-family stakeholders [10]. As a result, the firm may sacrifice opportunities for long-term growth and resilience in favor of maintaining family harmony in the short term. Nevertheless, under conditions of dispersed ownership, a more generous dividend policy may serve a strategic purpose. It can act as a unifying mechanism that balances competing interests, caters to the individual goals of family members, and sustains cohe-sion within the ownership group [11]. By accommodating the diverse pref-erences of family shareholders, the firm can reduce potential conflicts and ensure a level of stability and alignment that is essential for the broader continuity of the family enterprise [12]. In this context, a comprehensive review of the literature reveals a strong emphasis on financial determinants in the study of corporate decision-making and governance. While these factors are undoubtedly important in understanding business performance, they fail to capture the unique dynamics and complexities inherent to family businesses [13]. In contrast, non-financial governance determinants emerge as defining characteris-tics of family enterprises, deeply influencing their behavior, decision- making processes, and strategic direction [14]. Family businesses are distinct from their non-family counterparts due to their dual focus on financial and non-financial priorities. These priorities often include preserving socio-emotional wealth, maintaining family harmony, ensuring the continuity of the fam-ily legacy, and fulfilling long-term commitments to both family members and stakehold-ers. Such non-financial factors often take precedence in decision-making, shaping policies and practices that differ significantly from those of non- family firms. For instance, gov-ernance mechanisms in family firms may prioritize trust, informal communication, and values-driven leadership over traditional financial metrics [15]. Despite their importance, non-financial governance factors remain underexplored in the academic discourse, which has historically favored financial determinants [15]. This narrow focus risks overlooking critical aspects of family businesses, such as the impact of family ownership structure, generational involvement, succession planning, and the alignment of family and business goals. These factors not only define the strategic orientation of family enterprises but also determine their ability to sustain competitive advantages and adapt to changing environments [16]. To address this gap, future research must shift its focus toward a more holistic un-derstanding of family businesses by incorporating non-financial governance determi-nants into the analysis. Such an approach will enrich the theoretical framework sur-rounding family enterprises and provide deeper insights into their distinct governance models. Furthermore, it will offer valuable practical implications, equipping family busi-nesses with strategies to balance financial performance with the preservation of their unique non-financial priorities, thereby ensuring their long-term sustainability and suc-cess. In this vein, the main objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the financial and non-financial determinants influencing dividend policies in family busi-nesses, drawing insights from a selection of 63 articles retrieved from the Scopus database. 898 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 2. Dividend Policy of Family Firms: What Theories Can Be Applied? Decisions on corporate dividends represent one of the most strategic and consequen-tial choices for firms, profoundly impacting their financial structure, market perception, and shareholder relationships [17]. These decisions are intricately shaped by firm-specific characteristics, governance mechanisms, and broader contextual factors. Over decades, the complexities surrounding dividend policy have prompted the devel-opment of diverse theoretical frameworks, reflecting its central role in corporate finance and governance [18]. Among these frameworks, agency theory, signaling theory, pecking order theory, life cycle theory and socio-emotional wealth theory. Each theory provides unique insights into the motivations behind dividend distributions, the mechanisms for addressing conflicts of interest, and the implications for shareholder wealth. In the context of family firms, these dynamics become even more pronounced due to the intertwined roles of ownership, management, and generational continuity. Family-owned businesses often exhibit distinctive dividend strategies, driven by their emphasis on control, long-term wealth preservation, and intergenerational equity [19]. These firms serve as an exceptional context for exploring the interplay between theoretical constructs and practical decision- making. 2.1. Agency Theory Dividend policy is a cornerstone of strategic decision-making in firms, particularly in family-owned enterprises where governance structures and ownership concentration in-troduce unique dynamics [20]. These decisions are deeply rooted in firm-specific characteristics and are shaped by various theoretical frameworks, with agency theory being one of the most prominent. Agency theory highlights the conflicts of interest that arise between principals (owners) and agents (managers), driven by infor- mation asymmetry and divergent objectives [21]. The two primary manifestations of these conflicts are adverse selection and moral hazard. Adverse selec-tion occurs when principals engage agents whose incentives or competencies may not align with organizational goals. In contrast, moral hazard arises when agents prioritize self-serving actions at the expense of the principals’ interests [21]. In family firms, the overlap between ownership and management often mitigates Type I agency conflicts (between owners and managers). Trust, altruism, and familial ties reduce the need for costly monitoring mechanisms, as family members are typically more aligned in their objectives. However, these firms are not exempt from governance chal-lenges. Type II agency conflicts, which occur between majority family shareholders and minority shareholders, are particularly pronounced in family businesses [22]. The risk of expropriation or unequal treatment of minority shareholders can un- dermine trust and deter investment. Such conflicts are exacerbated when ownership is concentrated within a small group of family members who dominate decision-making processes [23]. Dividend policy emerges as a critical tool to manage these agency conflicts, serving multiple roles in family firms [24, 25]. Firstly, dividends act as a mechanism to reduce free cash flow, thereby limiting the poten-tial for opportunistic behavior by managers or controlling shareholders. Secondly, regular and substantial dividend payments signal the firm’s commitment to wealth distribution, reinforcing trust among minority shareholders and external stakeholders. In this context, dividends are not merely a financial decision but a strategic governance mechanism that aligns the interests of diverse stakeholders. For family firms, balancing the dual objectives of preserving familial wealth and maintaining equitable treatment of all shareholders is a central challenge in crafting dividend policies. The theoretical underpinnings of agency conflicts and their implications for dividend policy emphasize the importance of robust governance frameworks in family firms. Transparent decision- making processes, equitable treatment of minority shareholders, and the alignment of interests through well-designed dividend strategies are vital for sus-taining long-term performance [26]. By leveraging their unique strengths and addressing governance vulnerabilities, family businesses can enhance their resilience, at-tract external investment, and ensure their enduring success in competitive markets. 899 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 2.2. Signaling Theory Dividends play a crucial role in reducing information asymmetry between well-informed corporate insiders and less-informed external investors. Signaling theory suggests that changes in dividends convey key insights about a firm's financial health and future prospects. For instance, dividend increases signal confidence in sustained profitability, while stable dividends during declining profits suggest temporary challeng-es with expected recovery [27, 28]. Key models, including those by Bhattacharya [29] and Kalay [30] support this perspective. Bhattacharya highlights increased dividends as credible positive signals, while Kalay emphasizes the reputational risks of misleading signals, which can erode shareholder confidence. Miller and Rock further stress dividends as reliable indicators of current earnings [31]. These insights underscore dividends' dual role as both financial distributions and critical communicative tools, reflecting managerial confidence and influencing market perceptions. 2.3. Pecking Order Theory Myers [32] hierarchical financing theory provides an alternative explanation for corporate dividend behavior. According to this theory, firms seeking to fund new invest-ments adhere to a financing hierarchy: first utilizing internal funds, then issuing debt, and only resorting to equity issuance in exceptional circumstances. This hierarchy is designed to mitigate the risks of underinvestment, which may result from excessive reliance on debt, and to address the information asymmetry between managers and external inves-tors. When internal funds are insufficient, firms are expected to issue debt to cover the funding gap, whereas equity financing should be used sparingly. Under this framework, firms of higher quality are expected to exhibit lower leverage and lower short-term dividend payouts, as they prioritize retaining earnings to finance future investment opportunities [33]. Firms with greater growth prospects, on the other hand, are more likely to exhibit higher leverage, given that their investment needs exceed internally generated funds, leading to lower dividend distribu-tions. Consequently, the pecking order theory predicts a negative relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. To avoid the need for external financing and to maximize the use of internal resources for investment, firms are incentivized to reduce dividend payouts [34]. This anticipated negative relationship between dividends and investment opportuni-ties aligns with predictions from transaction cost theory. However, it stands in contrast to agency theory and the free cash flow hypothesis, which suggest that higher dividend payouts are necessary to mitigate the risk of managerial misuse of excess internal funds through value-destroying investments. 2.4. Life Cycle Theory DeAngelo, et al. [35] extended the free cash flow theory of Jensen [36] providing a refined perspective on corporate dividend policy through the lens of a firm's life cycle. They argued that dividend behavior is closely tied to the firm's stage of development. Ac-cording to their findings, mature firms with stable cash flows and limited investment op-portunities are more likely to distribute dividends, as they have fewer profitable projects to reinvest in. Conversely, young and high-growth firms, facing abundant investment op-portunities, tend to retain earnings to finance expansion, thus limiting dividend payouts. This life cycle theory suggests that dividend policy evolves as the firm progresses through different stages of development. In the early stages, firms prioritize reinvestment in growth opportunities, leading to low or no dividends. However, as firms mature and investment opportunities become less attractive or less plentiful, they generate stable prof-its, which encourages dividend distribution. This shift reflects a strategic transition from retention of earnings for growth to distribution of profits to shareholders, as the need for reinvestment diminishes. The cycle of dividend behavior has been further supported by empirical evidence. Grullon, et al. [37] found that firms tend to increase their dividend payouts as they ma-ture and experience a decline 900 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate in growth opportunities. Grullon, et al. [37] emphasized that firms in their later stages of the life cycle allocate capital more towards dividends than reinvestment, a process that underscores the relationship between a firm’s maturity and its dividend policy. Overall, the life cycle theory of dividends offers a comprehensive framework for un-derstanding how dividend decisions evolve over time. It underscores the importance of contextual factors such as growth opportunities, financial stability, and investment needs, all of which shape a firm’s approach to capital allocation and dividend distribution. This approach integrates dividend policy into the broader financial strategy of firms, high-lighting its dynamic nature in response to the firm’s development trajectory. 2.5. Socio-Emotional Wealth and Dividend Payouts in Family Firms Previous literature has highlighted socio-emotional wealth (SEW) as a crucial ele-ment in understanding the unique behavior of family firms, though it has often been un-derexplored. SEW refers to the non-financial benefits that family owners derive from their businesses, such as control, reputation, and emotional attachment. By integrating SEW into the analysis of dividend distribution decisions, researchers can deepen their under-standing and clarify the inconsistent findings in prior studies [38]. Empirical evidence suggests that in family firms, strategic decisions are frequently shaped by SEW considerations rather than strictly financial or economic rationality. Fam-ily firms are often more focused on preserving family control and influence, ensuring the transmission of the business to future generations, and maintaining family well-being. To achieve these goals, family owners tend to favor internal financing (e.g., retained earnings) over external financing methods such as debt. This preference for internal financing helps avoid external risks that could jeopardize family control and the firm’s governance struc-ture [39]. Consequently, these firms are more likely to retain earnings and dis- tribute fewer dividends. Furthermore, the decision-making process in family firms typically follows a distinc-tive pattern that blends economic objectives with social and emotional goals, particularly the long-term preservation of family capital [40]. As a result, dividend distribution decisions are often influenced by SEW considerations, with firms opting for profit retention to strengthen internal capital rather than paying out dividends. This strategy reflects a cautious approach to external financing, as the family seeks to maintain control and limit the potential dilution of influence [5]. By using internal cash reserves to fund investments, family firms reduce available liquidity for dividend payouts, thereby aligning their financial strategies with the broader goal of preserving family control [41]. 3. Materials and Methods This study adopted the methodological principles of Saunders, et al. [42] which define bibliometric studies and systematic reviews as research strategies: “bibliometrics is a quantitative and statistical technique for measuring the rates of production and dissemination of scientific knowledge”. For Sampaio and Mancini [43] the systematic review, on the other hand, used in addition to bibliometric to help understand data by deepening their analy-sis, is “a form of research that uses literature on a given subject as a source of data”. The authors also state that “systematic reviews are particularly useful for integrating infor-mation from a set of separately conducted studies” [42]. Due to the use of two different research strategies, it was necessary to use a mixed approach as data is worked on both quantitative and qualitative. “Mixed-method research focuses on the collection, analysis and blending of quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies” [42]. Several data platforms offer the possibility to extract the required information. These include Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Dimension and J-Stor. These platforms allow for a systematic analysis of literature in various fields, including that of manage-ment associated with finance. In the context of this study, a selection of articles published over the last two decades in this specific field of research was carried out from Scopus. The Scopus multidisciplinary database is the source of information used for this study, which contains several influential academic journals for the academic community [44]. In total, 322 articles were identified up to December 2023 using research thesau-ri 901 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate such as “Dividend Policy” And “Finance” And “Family Business” And “Governance”. No additional restrictions were applied to the research because we wanted to reach as many available documents on the subject as possible. Results were saved in CSV format and contained all information such as the name and affiliation of the authors, article title, abstract and keywords. This data was used as the primary source for systematic literature analysis. Finally, the following aspects were analysed using information obtained from the database: (i) the evolution of scientific production over time, (ii) scientific productivity by country/journal/author and impact, (iii) the articles with the highest number of citations and (iv) analysis of bibliographic networks of bibliographical linkage and co-occurrence of terms. To ensure transparency and completeness of our systematic and bibliometric review, we have followed the PRISMA framework. We searched the Scopus database for studies. We chose this database because it is the most used for financial journals. As well as providing a comprehensive view of the global research output in various fields such as Finance, Taxation, Social Sciences, Economics, Accounting, making it an ideal resource for this study. We used the following keyword chain to find as many articles as possible that would answer our research questions: (Family Business) AND (Finance) AND (Policy) AND (Dividend) AND (Governance). We have adapted the syntax of the keyword string appro-priately for each database. The search was limited to the title, abstract and keywords spec-ified by the authors. In addition, we used the search-based article reference lists to find additional articles that fit our search criteria. Here, the total number of articles containing (Finance), (Policy), (Dividend), (Govern-ance) AND (Family Business). In the abstract, title or keywords (author and indexed key-words) with the article document type when initially selected was 322. The process for se-lecting eligible articles based on preferred reporting elements for systematic and biblio-metric journals (PRISMA) is presented in Figure 2 below. 902 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram. Finally, to broaden the results due to a modest number of relevant studies, cross-references in included articles were examined. The research is presented graphically according to the PRISMA consort diagram (Fig. 2) and was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines as a systematic review. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Criteria Justification Inclusion Criteria English language. The article deals with “FAMILY BUSINESS” and “DIVIDEND POLICY” and “FINANCE” and “GOVERNANCE”. Article published in 2008-2023. Exclusion Criteria Non-academic articles. Duplicate items. We reviewed the articles obtained to ensure their relevance through a two-step selec-tion process. In the first step, we read the titles and abstracts and excluded those articles that did not meet our selection criteria. The second step was to obtain the full text and read all articles, and then add them to our database for review. At this stage, articles were dis-carded if (a) they did not contain original research data; (b) they are not published in arti-cles with an impact factor; (c) they do not present 903 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate empirical data (e.g. theoretical and con-ceptual papers, essays, tool demonstrations, etc.); (d) they were not fully published in Eng-lish or French; and (e) they are not published during the period between 2008 and 2023. We have not included the summary articles, government reports or grey literature (Grey literature refers to documents produced by various public, commercial or industrial enti-ties subject to intellectual property rules and not controlled by commercial publications.) 4. Results In this section, we will begin with a brief bibliometric analysis to assess the trends and characteristics of publications in our field of study over time. Then, we will look at a thorough thematic analysis, where we will examine the main themes and recurring con-cepts. This thematic study will help us to organize existing knowledge, understand key issues, and identify gaps and opportunities for future research. 4.1. Evolution of Scientific Production Figure 1 presents the scientific evolution of our topic "Financial and Non-Financial Determinants of Dividend Policy in Family Businesses", it shows that the annual produc-tion of literature was minimal in the early stages of research (2008-2018). Subsequently, a substantial growth in scientific production has occurred over the past ten years, since 95% of articles were published during this period (2021- 2023), this indicates the interest of ac-ademics to focus their research on the subject but despite this interest the research in this field has not yet reached its full maturity. Figure 2. Evolution of scientific production. 4.2. Productivity of Authors Over Time The evaluation of author productivity from SCOPUS data can be interpreted through key indicators such as h-index, total citations, FWCI (Field-Weighted Citation Impact), and the percentage of articles in percentiles of high citations. The following is an analysis of the authors mentioned in the table below. 904 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 2. The most contributing authors. Number Authors H-index Total Citations FWCI Documents Top citation percentiles 1 Brusov, Peter N. 12 462 0.682 108 11.3% 2 Filatova, Tatiana V. 12 349 2.743 74 11.8% 3 Orekhova, Natali P. 9 200 0.384 54 11.1% 4 Abor, Joshua Yindenaba 30 3,812 0.444 162 26% 5 Baker, H. Kent 27 2,573 1.693 103 53.6% 6 Jarboui, Anis 25 2,158 5.073 145 48.7% 7 Lee, Cheng few 33 3,827 - 342 8.6% 8 Sarwar, Bushra 7 145 1.226 12 50% 9 Villeneuve, Stéphane 15 743 0.39 31 18.2% 10 Yaseen, Hanaan 3 18 1.693 5 - 4.2.1. Productivity and Overall Impact Authors such as Joshua Yindenaba Abor (h-index = 30, 3,812 citations) and Lee, Cheng-Few (h- index = 33, 3,827 citations) show indicators of very high productivity and significant scientific impact. With a high number of published papers (162 for Abor and 342 for Lee), they are major contributors in their respective fields. Their high h-index re-flects a consistent production of articles with a sustainable impact, while the presence of a large proportion of articles in the top citation percentiles (26% for Abor) reflects their in-ternational recognition. 4.2.2. Impact of FWCI (Field-Weighted Citation Impact) Authors like Anis Jarboui (FWCI = 5,073) and Tatiana V. Filatova (FWCI = 2,743) stand out by a very high relative impact. The FWCI greater than 1 indicates that their arti-cles receive much more citations than the global average in their respective disciplines, thus demonstrating exceptional scientific influence despite a more moderate number of publications (145 for Jarboui and 74 for Filatova). This shows high quality research with significant international impact. 4.2.3. Authors with Lower Productivity but High Impact Some authors such as Bushra Sarwar (h-index = 7, FWCI = 1.226) and H. Kent Baker (h-index = 27, FWCI = 1.693) demonstrate a high relative impact per article. Although Bushra Sarwar has published a limited number of papers (12), her high FWCI indicates that her work is well cited compared to similar global publications. H. Kent Baker com-bines a significant number of publications (103 documents) with remarkable visibility, with 53.6% of his publications in the top percentiles. 4.2.4. Scientific Productions by Country Scientific productivity is largely dominated by economically powerful countries such as the US 79, China 46, and the UK 27, these three countries are the main contributors in the field of science, Thanks to robust research infrastructures, substantial funding and developed international collaborations. The US and China continue to show high produc-tivity, often linked to massive research funding and a large number of active researchers. The UK, despite its smaller size, is distinguished by a strong academic tradition and world-renowned excellence. Countries such as India (23), Australia (17) and Pakistan (13) are increasingly positioning themselves in the global scientific landscape. Their growing productivity is a testament to their commitment to areas such as technology. India is booming with growing investments in science and technology. Pakistan, with 13 publica-tions, has a significant presence among developing countries, showing significant con-tributions despite more limited resources. In addition, several countries such as Bangladesh (3), Tunisia (3), Viet Nam (3) and Tanzania (2) show emerging efforts in scientific research. Their low number of publica-tions indicates a still limited but gradually evolving scientific production. Although these countries have limited research infrastructures, national and international initiatives such as university collaborations can improve their 905 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate scientific visibility. Finally, some countries, such as Brunei, Chile and Barbados (1 publication each), are included in the ranking with an anecdotal presence. This may be due to a smaller size of the scientific community or lack of funding for research. Table 3. Scientific productions by country. Country Pub Country Pub Country Pub United States 79 South Africa 6 Austria 2 China 46 Belgium 5 Greece 2 United Kingdom 27 Brazil 5 Israel 2 India 23 Japan 5 Norway 2 Australia 17 Switzerland 5 Singapore 2 Germany 17 Bahrain 4 Sri Lanka 2 France 14 Ghana 4 Tanzania 1 Pakistan 13 Portugal 4 United Arab Emirates 1 Canada 11 Taiwan 4 Barbados 1 Italy 11 Bangladesh 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 Malaysia 11 Hungary 3 Brunei Darussalam 1 Russian Federation 11 Jordan 3 Chile 1 Netherlands 10 Nigeria 3 Indonesia 9 Sweden 3 South Korea 9 Thailand 3 Hong Kong 7 Tunisia 3 Figure 3. Country collaboration Map. 4.3. The Most Influents Journal The table presented on the Score site, using data extracted from Scopus, shows im-portant metrics regarding scientific publications. It highlights several key indicators such as the CiteScore, and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), which measure the impact and quality of journals or authors. The CiteScore is an indicator of the average number of citations that a journal article receives over a 3-year period, giving an idea of the immediate impact of the journal. By comparing this data, we can identify the most influential publications in our field, as well as the authors who have contributed most to the advancement of re-search. A high CiteScore is generally seen as a sign of strong academic recognition and impact in the scientific community. However, it is essential to consider the specific context of each 906 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate area as impact standards may vary. Thus, the interpretation of these data requires additional analysis to avoid simplistic conclusions. Our ranking is based on the Cite Score for articles published in 2008-2023 and measures the intensity of citations. Journal of Financial Economics for example has a Cite Score of 15.8, this means that of all articles published in this journal during the reference period were cited 15 times or more in. With this score, Journal of Corporate Finance also achieved the highest ranking in the Scopus list Table 4. Most influents journal. N° Journal TP TC Cite Score 1 Managerial Finance 1234 376 3.3 2 International Journal of Managerial Finance 642 156 4.1 3 International Review of Financial Analysis 12796 1244 10.3 4 Journal of Corporate Finance 9312 786 11.8 5 Corporate Ownership and Control 139 818 0.2 6 Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 2316 397 2.6 7 Investment Management and Financial Innovations 1196 481 2.5 8 Journal of Financial Economics 10162 645 15.8 9 Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 1256 397 3.2 10 Cogent Business and Management 6580 1495 4.4 4.4. Bibliometric Network of Terms Co-Occurrence The main objective of a bibliometric co-occurrence network is to analyse and visual-ize the relationships between terms or keywords in a set of scientific publications. This al-lows for an understanding of research trends, the identification of core concepts, and the identification of thematic connections within a given field. The main objectives are as fol-lows. In this context, the co-occurrence of terms applied to the themes Family Business, Dividend Policy and Finance allows to identify the conceptual links between these re-search areas. The graph generally shows several nodes representing the most common key terms and links that illustrate their co- occurrence in scientific publications. In this context, the central nodes such as "Family Business", "finance" and "dividend policy" demonstrate the importance of the family ownership structure in financial deci-sion-making, particularly with regard to dividend distribution. These concepts are closely linked to terms such as "cash-flow", "profitability" and "firm value", indicating that finan-cial performance and liquidity play a key role in the formulation of dividend policies. In-deed, in order to analyse the graph which highlights a dynamic interaction between fam-ily businesses, dividend policy and financial and non-financial factors, while highlight-ing priority research areas. • Cluster 1 - Finance: This cluster links financial decisions to the overall performance of companies. The studies highlight that family businesses, due to their unique capital structure, influence the value of the business and its profitability. In emerging markets, specific institutional and cultural factors are modulating these dynamics, adding a re-gional perspective to financial studies [13]. • Cluster 2 - Family businesses and corporate governance: This cluster highlights the central role of family businesses in academic literature; especially the challenges related to estate planning and agency conflicts. Family governance directly influences strategic and financial decisions, including the company’s performance and dividend distribu-tion behavior [45]. • Cluster 3 - Dividend policy: is often discussed in the context of family businesses. This cluster reveals that profit distribution decisions depend on factors such as liquidity (cash-flow), profitability and financial stability. Family businesses, often prudent, prefer to retain profits to ensure the sustainability of the business, unlike non-family busi-nesses [6, 46]. 907 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 5. VOSviewer key-words. Figure 6. Clouds of words. Source: VOSviewer bibliographic coupling. An inductive thematic analysis, inspired by the methodology of Braun and Clarke [47] was undertaken to explore and identify factors that contribute to dividend policy in family firms, along with their associated indicators, directly from the dataset of articles. This analytical approach emphasizes deriving insights from the raw data without relying on pre-established coding schemes or theoretical frameworks. By doing so, the process avoids imposing external perspectives or biases from the researcher, ensuring that the themes and patterns identified are grounded in the data itself. This organic, data-driven approach allows the findings to reflect the unique context and nuances of the articles an-alyzed, providing a more authentic representation of the underlying factors and their in- terconnections. Through this method, emergent themes are discovered systematically, fostering a deeper understanding of the key drivers and metrics linked to dividend policy in family businesses [48]. 908 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate In this vein, the operational framework serves as a critical foundation for the study, outlining the specific types of data utilized, the sources from which the data are derived, and the detailed procedures employed for their analysis. This framework is not merely a descriptive tool; it is a strategic roadmap that ensures the coherence and integrity of the research process. By defining the nature of the data— whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed—and specifying their origins, such as primary data from fieldwork or secondary data from credible repositories, the framework establishes the credibility of the research inputs [48]. Additionally, the analytical procedures within this frame-work reflect a methodical approach to extracting insights, employing robust statistical tools, thematic analysis, or computational techniques to address the study’s objectives. This operationalization of the research process enables a clear linkage between theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence. It also ensures replicability and transparency, which are essential for scholarly rigor and the advancement of knowledge within the field. As such, the operational framework not only underpins the research's validity but also enhances its contribution to academic discourse and practical applications [49]. This study identified and categorized the factors contributing to dividend policy in family firms through a systematic inductive analysis of relevant articles. To achieve this, detailed information regarding dividend policy determinants was meticulously extracted and documented from a lot of articles. This approach allowed for a comprehensive under-standing of the various factors, enabling their classification based on recurring themes and patterns identified within the literature. In this context, these factors are categorized into two overarching groups: financial determinants and non- financial determinants, as detailed in the table below. Table 5. Identification of financial and non-financial determinants. Determinants Main Authors Financial Determinants Profitabilty Signaling theory Agency theory Life cycle theory Sari and Sedana [50]; Mangesti and Suhadak [51]; Pranata and Pujiati [52]; Mahdaleta, et al. [53] and Al-Kuwari [54]. Past Dividend Signaling theory Baker, et al. [55]; Al‐Ajmi and Abo Hussain [56] and Ahmed and Javid [18]. Liquidity Agency theory Nyere and Wesson [57]; Kuo, et al. [58] and Denis and Osobov [59]. Growth Opportunities Pecking order theory Agency theory Life cycle theory Jabbouri [13] and Kapoor, et al. [60]. Financial Leverage Transaction cost theory Agency theory Pecking order theory Khan, et al. [61] and Tahir and Mushtaq [62]. Asset Tangibility Signaling theory Smith, et al. [63]; Al‐Ajmi and Abo Hussain [56] and Al‐Najjar and Hussainey [64] Firm size Free cash flow theory Life cycle theory Prasetia and Eko [65] and Chen and Dhiensiri [46]. Non-Financial Determinants Independent board members Agency theory Elmagrhi, et al. [66]; Wintoki, et al. [67] and Westphal and Graebner [68]. COE Duality Agency theory Elmagrhi, et al. [66]; McNulty, et al. [69] and Wintoki, et al. [67]. Gender Diversity Agency theory Mulchandani, et al. [70]; Gyapong, et al. [71] and Saeed and Sameer [72]. Board Size Agency theory Elmagrhi, et al. [66]; Shahid, et al. [73] and McNulty, et al. [69]. Meeting Frequency Agency theory Elmagrhi, et al. [66] and Ntim and Osei [74]. Audit Quality Agency theory Herusetya [75]; Tandiontong [76] and Behn, et al. [77]. Institutional Ownership Agency theory Nguyen and Li [78] and Jacob and PJ [79]. 909 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 5. Discussion This systematic review, as presented in Table 4, identifies two primary categories of determinants that influence dividend policy: financial and non-financial factors. Among the financial determinants, profitability plays a central role, with higher profitability gen-erally leading to increased dividend payouts, unless the firm opts to reinvest earnings. Signaling theory further suggests that profitable firms use dividends as a signal of finan-cial health [80]. Liquidity and debt levels are also crucial, with higher liquidity facilitating dividend payments and higher debt reducing them due to debt ser-vicing requirements [81]. In this regard, past dividend levels signifi-cantly affect current payout decisions, as companies tend to maintain stable dividends, as shown by Lintner’s model [55]. Growth opportunities also shape divi-dend policies, with high-growth firms preferring to reinvest earnings rather than pay div-idends [82]. Additionally, tangible assets and firm size are positively correlat-ed with dividend distributions, as firms with more tangible assets can secure financing more easily, while larger firms have greater financial flexibility and cash flow stability. These findings underscore the complexity of dividend policy, which is influenced by a combination of financial performance and strategic business factors [64]. Non-financial determinants of dividend policy are critical in shaping corporate gov-ernance and mitigating agency conflicts between shareholders and management. Agency theory highlights that family ownership may align the interests of owners and managers, reducing agency conflicts and using dividends as a control mechanism. However, some argue that high dividends could reduce wealth expropriation in family firms. Board characteristics such as role duality (Chairman-CEO) and board independence influence dividend decisions. While duality can lead to entrenchment, independent directors help reduce agency conflicts and often favor dividends [66, 70]. Board size and diversity also impact dividend payouts. Larger boards may reduce agency costs but can also suffer from poor governance, leading to higher dividends as compensation [73]. Gender diversity on boards tends to enhance oversight and may either increase or decrease dividend payouts depending on the governance con-text [71]. The frequency of board meetings plays a key role in improving governance and may lead to higher dividends, although its relationship with dividend policy can vary [74]. Lastly, audit quality improves transparency, reduces opportunistic behavior, and strengthens governance. High-quality audits reduce agency conflicts, ensuring that divi-dends are aligned with shareholder interests [76]. Together, these non-financial factors influence dividend policies and play a crucial role in corporate gov-ernance. 6. Conclusions In this article, we attempted to review the literature on succession in family busi-nesses through bibliometric indicators. We based our research on articles published in the Scopus database, which led us to several conclusions. Indeed, the work on family businesses and dividend policy is a particularly interesting field of research. However, it has not received sufficient attention in the past; it is a relatively recent theme that is char-acterized by strong connectivity between authors. In addition to the productivity indicator and citation analyses, a content analysis was conducted. During the first period, a signif-icant amount of research was focused on finance, dividend policy and family business performance. It was only from the second period that new themes emerged. This has significantly changed the perception of family businesses. In fact, the knowledge accumulated about family businesses has progressed relatively well, except that there are still issues that are ignored. First, future researchers must consider that family businesses are not a homogeneous group, and what works for one company will not necessarily work for another. Thus, future researchers could focus more on the non-financial variables that might explain this heterogeneity, such as family identity, families, socio-emotional wealth, cultural difference, etc. Second, we believe that more work is needed to understand how strategic aspects such as internationalization, innovation and the professionalization process can change after dividend policy. 910 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Finally, it seems to us that studies in different contexts, such as de-veloping countries or Arab countries, could also make a great contribution. In terms of methodology, we noted that the majority of work is based on quantitative methods [83, 84]. However, in a context such as family businesses where cases may be different from each other, the dynamics and complexity of the business cannot be understood without understanding the intentions and actions of the family members [85]. This study employed a rigorous methodological approach, integrating both statistical and content analyses to provide a comprehensive examination of the subject matter. Nev-ertheless, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The bibliometric analysis was con-ducted using VOSviewer and RStudio, which, although offering robust tools for visualiz-ing and analyzing bibliometric data, are not state-of-the-art in terms of supporting ad-vanced and exhaustive analyses. These software tools, while adequate for the scope of this study, may have constrained the depth of exploration achievable. Despite these limitations, this research represents a significant step forward in en-hancing the understanding of dividend policy in family businesses. By addressing this critical area, the study not only adds to the existing body of knowledge but also identifies key gaps and challenges, thereby paving the way for further scholarly inquiry. It is hoped that future researchers will build upon these findings, employ more advanced analytical tools, and address the highlighted constraints to propel the field in innovative directions. Such efforts are essential to advancing both the theoretical and practical understanding of dividend policy dynamics in family enterprises. 7. Implication and Limitation This study provides significant theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it enhances the understanding of financial and non-financial factors shaping dividend policies in family businesses, drawing from corporate governance and economic theories. Practically, it offers actionable insights for decision-makers, particularly managers, to re-fine dividend strategies while balancing the interests of family and minority shareholders. These findings are especially relevant in contexts where governance is critical to the per-formance and sustainability of family enterprises. However, the research is not without limitations. By relying solely on Scopus-indexed articles, it may have overlooked relevant studies from other databases or non-indexed sources. Additionally, the analysis focuses on articles published between 2008 and 2023, potentially missing more recent trends or regional nuances. The absence of empirical val-idation further limits the generalizability of its findings across varied contexts. Future research could address these limitations by conducting empirical studies to validate the identified determinants of dividend policy through quantitative or qualitative methods. Expanding the scope to include additional databases and exploring un-derrepresented regions or industries would provide richer insights. Investigating the in-fluence of emerging factors, such as digital transformation or ESG criteria, on dividend policies in family businesses could also prove valuable. Comparative studies between family and non-family firms in varying institutional settings would further contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these dynamics. Abbreviations: The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: Chairman-CEO Chairman and Chief Executive Office CSV: Comma-Separated Values. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. TP: Total Points. TC: Total Citations. 911 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.Y. and B.O.; methodology, A.Y. and, T.Y.; software, E.K.; validation, Y.A., T.Y..; formal analysis, A.Y., T.Y and B.O.; investigation, A.Y., and B.O.; re-sources, E.K.; data curation, B.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Y., B.O and T.Y,; writ-ing—review and editing, A.Y, and E.K.; visualization, B.A.; supervision, E.K.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.” Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] K. Madison, D. T. Holt, F. W. Kellermanns, and A. L. Ranft, "Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories," Family Business Review, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 65-93, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486515594292 [2] M. Bertrand, S. Johnson, K. Samphantharak, and A. Schoar, "Mixing family with business: A study of Thai business groups and the families behind them," Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 466-498, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.04.002 [3] J. Pindado, I. Requejo, and C. Torre, "Do family firms use dividend policy as a governance mechanism? Evidence from the Euro zone," Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 413–431, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00921.x [4] M. Duygun, Y. Guney, and A. Moin, "Dividend policy of Indonesian listed firms: The role of families and the state," Economic Modelling, vol. 75, pp. 336-354, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.007 [5] S. Vandemaele and M. Vancauteren, "Nonfinancial goals, governance, and dividend payout in private family firms," Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 166-182, 2015. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12063 [6] Y. Azekkar, A. El Mallouky, and K. E Ouafa, "Dividend policy: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Accounting, Finance, Auditing, Management and Economics, vol. 4, no. 3-1, pp. 757-772, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8092710 [7] P. Jaskiewicz, J. G. Combs, and S. B. Rau, "Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 29-49, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.001 [8] D. T. Holt, A. W. Pearson, J. C. Carr, and T. Barnett, "Family firm (s) outcomes model: Structuring financial and nonfinancial outcomes across the family and firm," Family Business Review, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 182-202, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516680930 [9] Y. Azekkar, O. Boustta, Y. Taghouti, B. Abidar, and K. El Ouafa, "Dividend policy: A comprehensive analysis of classical, neoclassical, and modern theories in corporate finance," Multidisciplinary Reviews, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 2025301- 2025301, 2025. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025301 [10] B. Balachandran, A. Khan, P. Mather, and M. Theobald, "Insider ownership and dividend policy in an imputation tax environment," Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 54, pp. 153-167, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.01.014 [11] N. Attig, N. Boubakri, S. El Ghoul, and O. Guedhami, "The global financial crisis, family control, and dividend policy," Financial Management, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 291-313, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12115 [12] T. Yoshikawa and A. A. Rasheed, "Family control and ownership monitoring in family‐controlled firms in Japan," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 274-295, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00891.x [13] I. Jabbouri, "Determinants of corporate dividend policy in emerging markets: Evidence from MENA stock markets," Research in International Business and Finance, vol. 37, pp. 283-298, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.018 [14] L. Setia‐Atmaja, G. A. Tanewski, and M. Skully, "The role of dividends, debt and board structure in the governance of family controlled firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, vol. 36, no. 7‐8, pp. 863-898, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02151.x https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486515594292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.04.002 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00921.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.007 https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12063 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8092710 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516680930 https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.01.014 https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12115 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00891.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.018 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02151.x 912 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [15] F. Chirico, "Knowledge accumulation in family firms: Evidence from four case studies," International Small Business Journal, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 433-462, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242608091173 [16] O. Bandiera, R. Lemos, A. Prat, and R. Sadun, "Managing the family firm: Evidence from CEOs at work," The Review of Financial Studies, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1605-1653, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhx138 [17] X. Wei, C. Wang, and Y. Guo, "Does quasi-mandatory dividend rule restrain overinvestment?," International Review of Economics & Finance, vol. 63, pp. 4-23, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.07.001 [18] H. Ahmed and A. Javid, "Dynamics and determinants of dividend policy in Pakistan: Evidence from Karachi stock exchange non-financial listed firms," JISR Management and Social Sciences & Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 167-194, 2009. [19] Y. Hu, D. Wang, and S. Zhang, "Founding family ownership, management, and payout policy," Working Paper No. 123 Temple University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Marshall University, 2007. [20] K. M. Eisenhardt, "Building theories from case study research," Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532- 550, 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 [21] M. C. Jensen and W. H. Meckling, "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 305-360, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [22] D. M. Van Slyke, "The role of collaboration in relational contracting," presented at the Maxwell Conference on Collaborative Public Man-Agement, 2006. [23] D. Isakov and J.-P. Weisskopf, "Are founding families special blockholders? An investigation of controlling shareholder influence on firm performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 41, pp. 1-16, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.12.012 [24] A. Ali, T.-Y. Chen, and S. Radhakrishnan, "Corporate disclosures by family firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 44, no. 1-2, pp. 238-286, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.01.006 [25] P. Charlier and G. Lambert, "Analyse multivariable de la performance des PME familiales. Une lecture par la théorie positive de l’agence," Management International, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 67-79, 2009. https://doi.org/10.7202/029780 [26] M. Barrett, Challenging the orthodoxy: The role of social learning in sustainable transformations. In A. B. Lovins & H. J. Wagner (Eds.), Organizational Transformation for Sustainability. UK: Routledge 2014, pp. 43–60. [27] L. Taleb, "Dividend policy, signaling theory: A literature review," SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3359144 [28] I. El Farissi and R. M'rabet, Long-term financial decisions. Paris: Economica, 2011. [29] S. Bhattacharya, "Imperfect information, dividend policy, and" the bird in the hand" fallacy," The Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 259-270, 1979. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003330 [30] A. Kalay, "Stockholder-bondholder conflict and dividend constraints," Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 211-233, 1982. [31] L. Riad and K. Touili, "Dividends in the presence of market imperfections," European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 25, pp. 163-176, 2017. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n25p163 [32] S. C. Myers, "Capital structure puzzle," Journal of Finance, vol. 39, pp. 575-592, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03646.x [33] M. Ampenberger, T. Schmid, A.-K. Achleitner, and C. Kaserer, "Capital structure decisions in family firms: Empirical evidence from a bank-based economy," Review of Managerial Science, vol. 7, pp. 247-275, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0077-2 [34] M. L. Lemmon and J. F. Zender, "Debt capacity and tests of capital structure theories," Available at SSRN 334780, pp. 1-49, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.334780 [35] H. DeAngelo, L. DeAngelo, and R. M. Stulz, "Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix: A test of the life-cycle theory," Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 227-254, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.07.005 [36] M. C. Jensen, "Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers," American Economic Review, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 323–329, 1986. [37] G. Grullon, R. Michaely, and B. Swaminathan, "Are dividend changes a sign of firm maturity?," The journal of Business, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 387-424, 2002. [38] B. Arosa, T. Iturralde, and A. Maseda, "Outsiders on the board of directors and firm performance: Evidence from Spanish non-listed family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 236-245, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.10.004 [39] S. Basly, Family businesses in the Arab World. Edited by Sami Basly. Contributions to management science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. [40] P. Berrone and L. R. Gomez-Mejia, "Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency- institutional perspective," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 103-126, 2009. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461950 [41] M. Deslandes, A. Fortin, and S. Landry, "Payout differences between family and nonfamily listed firms: A socioemotional wealth perspective," Journal of Family Business Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 46–63, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2015-0020 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242608091173 https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhx138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.07.001 https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.12.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.01.006 https://doi.org/10.7202/029780 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3359144 https://doi.org/10.2307/3003330 https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n25p163 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03646.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0077-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.334780 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.10.004 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461950 https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2015-0020 913 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [42] M. Saunders, P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill, Research methods for business students, 5th ed. USA: Pearson Education Limited, 2009. [43] R. F. Sampaio and M. C. Mancini, "Systematic review studies: A guide to careful synthesis of scientific evidence," Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, vol. 11, pp. 83-89, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000100013 [44] M. Pidgeon, J.-A. Archibald, and C. Hawkey, "Relationships matter: Supporting Aboriginal graduate student success through mentorship," The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 1–21, 2016. [45] H. K. Baker and I. Jabbouri, "How Moroccan managers view dividend policy," Managerial Finance, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 270-288, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-07-2015-0211 [46] D. H. Chen and A. Dhiensiri, "Dividends for tunneling in a regulated economy: The case of China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 209-223, 2009. [47] V. Braun and V. Clarke, "Using thematic analysis in psychology," Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [48] S. Fonseca, A. Moreira, and J. Mota, "Factors influencing sustainable poverty reduction: A systematic review of the literature with a microfinance perspective," Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 309, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17070309 [49] S. Arunkumar, A. Anand, V. V. Anand, V. Rengarajan, and M. Shyam, "Empowering rural women through micro finance: An empirical study," Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 27, pp. 1-14, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i27/97597 [50] I. A. G. D. M. Sari and I. B. P. Sedana, "Profitability and liquidity on firm value and capital structure as intervening variable," International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 116-127, 2020. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v7n1.828 [51] R. S. Mangesti and S. Suhadak, M., "The reciprocal relationship between profitability and capital structure and its impacts on the corporate values of manufacturing companies in Indonesia," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 236-251, 2019. [52] D. Pranata and D. Pujiati, "The effect of liquidity, profitability, sales growth, and dividend policy on stock prices after the implementation of IFRS," The Indonesian Accounting Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 169-178, 2015. https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v5i2.647 [53] E. Mahdaleta, I. Muda, and G. M. Nasir, "Effects of capital structure and profitability on corporate value with company size as the moderating variable of manufacturing companies listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 30-43, 2016. https://doi.org/10.36418/edv.v2i1.345 [54] D. Al-Kuwari, "Determinants of the dividend policy of companies listed on emerging stock exchanges: The case of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries," Global Economy & Finance Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 38-63, 2009. [55] H. K. Baker, N. J. Dewasiri, W. B. Yatiwelle Koralalage, and A. A. Azeez, "Dividend policy determinants of Sri Lankan firms: A triangulation approach," Managerial Finance, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 2-20, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-03-2018-0096 [56] J. Al‐Ajmi and H. Abo Hussain, "Corporate dividends decisions: Evidence from Saudi Arabia," The Journal of Risk Finance, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 41-56, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/15265941111100067 [57] L. Nyere and N. Wesson, "Factors influencing dividend payout decisions: Evidence from South Africa," South African Journal of Business Management, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v50i1.1302 [58] J.-M. Kuo, D. Philip, and Q. Zhang, "What drives the disappearing dividends phenomenon?," Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 3499-3514, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.05.003 [59] D. J. Denis and I. Osobov, "Why do firms pay dividends? International evidence on the determinants of dividend policy," Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 62-82, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.06.006 [60] S. Kapoor, A. Mishra, and K. Anil, "Dividend policy determinants of Indian services sector: A factorial analysis," Paradigm, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 24-41, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720100105 [61] M. K. Khan, Y. He, U. Akram, and S. Sarwar, "Financing and monitoring in an emerging economy: Can investment efficiency be increased?," China Economic Review, vol. 45, pp. 62-77, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.05.012 [62] M. Tahir and M. Mushtaq, "Determinants of dividend payout: Evidence from listed oil and gas companies of Pakistan," The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 25-37, 2016. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2016.vol3.no4.25 [63] F. Smith, V. Puleo, and K. Casey, "Dividend policy and corporate governance: A research note," Corporate Ownership and Control, vol. 5, no. 3-1, pp. 220-223, 2008. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv5i3c1p6 [64] B. Al‐Najjar and K. Hussainey, "The association between dividend payout and outside directorships," Journal of Applied Accounting Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-19, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1108/09675420910963360 [65] T. Prasetia and T. Eko, "Capital structure, company size, and company risk of the value of automotive companies listed on the IDX," EMBA Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2014. https://doi.org/10.31253/aktek.v12i2.491 [66] M. H. Elmagrhi, C. G. Ntim, R. M. Crossley, J. K. Malagila, S. Fosu, and T. V. Vu, "Corporate governance and dividend pay-out policy in UK listed SMEs: The effects of corporate board characteristics," International Journal of https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000100013 https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-07-2015-0211 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17070309 https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i27/97597 https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v7n1.828 https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v5i2.647 https://doi.org/10.36418/edv.v2i1.345 https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-03-2018-0096 https://doi.org/10.1108/15265941111100067 https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v50i1.1302 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.05.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.06.006 https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890720100105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.05.012 https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2016.vol3.no4.25 https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv5i3c1p6 https://doi.org/10.1108/09675420910963360 https://doi.org/10.31253/aktek.v12i2.491 914 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 896-914, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7040 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Accounting & Information Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 459-483, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-02-2017- 0020 [67] M. B. Wintoki, J. S. Linck, and J. M. Netter, "Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance," Journal of financial economics, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 581-606, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005 [68] J. D. Westphal and M. E. Graebner, "A matter of appearances: How corporate leaders manage the impressions of financial analysts about the conduct of their boards," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 15-44, 2010. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036721 [69] T. McNulty, C. Florackis, and P. Ormrod, "Boards of directors and financial risk during the credit crisis," Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 58-78, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12007 [70] K. Mulchandani, K. Mulchandani, and S. S. Jasrotia, "Does gender diversity on firm’s board affect dividend payouts? Evidence from India," Future Business Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 40-65, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021- 00070-z [71] E. Gyapong, A. Ahmed, C. G. Ntim, and M. Nadeem, "Board gender diversity and dividend policy in Australian listed firms: The effect of ownership concentration," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 38, pp. 603-643, 2021. [72] A. Saeed and M. Sameer, "Impact of board gender diversity on dividend payments: Evidence from some emerging economies," International Business Review, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1100-1113, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.04.005 [73] M. S. Shahid, F. Gul, and M. Rizwan, "Ownership structure, board size, board composition and dividend policy: New evidence from two emerging markets," IBT Journal of Business Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 25–36, 2016. https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.jbs.2016.12.02.02 [74] C. G. Ntim and K. A. Osei, "The impact of corporate board meetings on corporate performance in South Africa," African Review of Economics and Finance, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 83–103, 2011. [75] A. Herusetya, "Audit quality of big four firms: evidence from client’s business strategy," Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 430-443, 2020. https://doi.org/10.22219/jrak.v10i3.12994 [76] Y. Tandiontong, Accounting research methodology. Bandung: Refika Aditama, 2016. [77] B. K. Behn, J. H. Choi, and T. Kang, "Audit quality and properties of analyst earnings forecasts," The Accounting Review, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 327-349, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.2.327 [78] T. Nguyen and H. Li, "Dividend policy and institutional holdings: evidence from Australia," International Journal of Financial Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8010012 [79] C. Jacob and J. L. PJ, "Institutional ownership and dividend payout in emerging markets: Evidence from India," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, vol. 17, no. 1_suppl, pp. S54-S82, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972652717751538 [80] M. Amidu and J. Abor, "Determinants of dividend payout ratios in Ghana," The Journal of Risk Finance, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 136-145, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1108/15265940610648580 [81] A. Kanwal and S. Kapoor, "Determinants of dividend payout ratios-a study of A., Indian Information Technology Sector a Indian Information Technology Sector," International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 63-71, 2008. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.87030 [82] M. S. Rozeff, "Growth, beta and agency costs as determinants of dividend payout ratios," Journal of Financial Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 249–259, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6803.1982.tb00299.x [83] I. Le Breton-rMiller and D. Miller, "Commentary: Family firms and the advantage of multitemporality," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1171-1177, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2011.00496.x [84] Q. Gu, J. W. Lu, and C.-N. Chung, "Incentive or disincentive? A socioemotional wealth explanation of new industry entry in family business groups," Journal of Management, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 645-672, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678450 [85] C. Cruz and R. Justo, "Portfolio entrepreneurship as a mixed gamble: A winning bet for family entrepreneurs in SMEs," Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 571-593, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12341 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-02-2017-0020 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-02-2017-0020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036721 https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12007 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00070-z https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00070-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.04.005 https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.jbs.2016.12.02.02 https://doi.org/10.22219/jrak.v10i3.12994 https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.2.327 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8010012 https://doi.org/10.1177/0972652717751538 https://doi.org/10.1108/15265940610648580 https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.87030 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6803.1982.tb00299.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00496.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00496.x https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678450 https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12341