http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz A B S T R A C T Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2021, Vol. 31, No. 02, 06-18 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2021 Small Business Institute® w w w. j s b s . o rg Introduction 1 Department of Marketing and Market Research, University of Valencia, Av. dels Tarongers, s/n, Postal Code: 46022, Valencia, Spain 2Administration Department, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Postal Code: 409054, Concepción, Chile, jocueli@alumni.uv.es 3Administration Department, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Postal Code: 409054, Concepción, Chile, ollanos@ucsc.cl 4Administration Department, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Postal Code: 409054, Concepción, Chile 5Department of Marketing and Market Research, University of Granada, Campus Cartuja s/n, Postal code: 18071, Granada, Spain, manuelalonso@ugr.es Reputation and identity in family firms: Current state and gaps for future research Reputation, Identity, Image, Family firms, Literature review APA Citation Information: Cuevas Lizama, J., Llanos Contreras, O., & Alonso Dos Santos, M.. (2021). Reputation and identity in family firms: Current state and gaps for future research. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31(2), 06-18. Family firms are predominant among small and me- dium companies, as well as among big companies (Zell- weger, 2017). Recent empirical research has pointed out that they enjoy a better reputation than their non-family peers (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). This is an advan- tage that improves the response of different interest groups when given communicational stimuli. Along these lines, Alonso-Dos-Santos et al. (2019) found that transmitting the family identity of a firm positively influences the atti- tude toward the website of the company and the potential consumers’ intention to purchase. However, other studies have suggested that the term “family company” can gener- ate both positive and negative associations from different stakeholders (as suppliers, customers and the community) (Botero et al., 2018). For this reason, knowing the different approximations and findings in the literature about repu- tation and transmission of the family identity of a firm is important. A family firm can be defined as a firm controlled by a family (property and control) over generations (Chua et al., 1999; Habbershon & Pistrui, 2002). The literature about these firms proposes that the interaction family-firms is a source of unique resources that sustain competitive advan- tages (Habbershon et al., 2003). Among the resources re- sulting from this interaction is the family identity itself and the reputation it transmits. The family identity of a firm is a concept that seeks to explain the link between the partic- ipation of the family in the firm and how this influences its competitiveness (Zellweger et al., 2010). This family iden- tity of a firm would have the potential to reflect the tradition, experience and knowledge of the family in the business (Beck & Prügl, 2018; Berrone et al., 2010). On the other hand, reputation is defined as the level of favourability to- ward a company and indicates the level at which the people involved admire and trust a company (Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Pfarrer et al., 2010). A favourable reputation can sus- Research surrounding the strategic value of the reputation and identity of a family firm is still an incipient topic and there is not abso- lute clarity about the response the different interest groups could have when these elements are communicated to them. Starting from a systematic review of the literature of Web of Science, 56 articles published between 2000 and 2020 were analyzed. The results show a growing number of articles based on the reputation and transmission of the family identity of firms. The cites in this articles have also shown important growth, confirming the relevance this topic has had. This work provides a review of the current state and evolution of the literature surrounding this topic, discusses the different lines of research related to the reputation and transfer of family identity, and finally identifies gaps in the research that can orient the development of future work. Jonathan Cuevas Lizama1, 2, Orlando Llanos Contreras3, Manuel Alonso Dos Santos4, 5 http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 7 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 tain consumer preferences towards a brand, as well as will- ingness to pay for products/services related to that brand (Deephouse, 2000; Rindova et al., 2010). The image an or- ganization projects is linked to its business strategy, which makes reputation an important asset (Fombrun, 1996). In the case of family businesses, the need to protect their im- age and reputation means that they are more socially re- sponsible actors than their non-family peers (Dyer & Whet- ten, 2006; Peake et al., 2015; Block et al., 2013) and are more concerned about providing reliable information (Chen et al., 2010; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Similarly, prior- ities for social-emotional wealth motivate family members to identify more strongly with the firm and to maintain a positive reputation (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Lohe & Calabrò, 2017). These perspectives detail how reputation priority influences family business strategies (see Table 1). This article makes three contributions: first, it provides an updated review of the different perspectives of the influ- ence of family identity on business; second, it contributes to lowering the barrier to understanding the perspective of identity in the family business; and finally, it provides an initial discussion that could be useful to illuminate future research. From here on in, this article describes the meth- ods used for the systematic review of the literature, then ex- plains the results about the evolution of the research about the topic, discusses the findings and contributions and final- ly presents the main conclusions and suggestions for future research. Method This systematic review of the literature is based on Tranfield et al. (2003). As a first stage, this method deter- mines the topic to be analysed, considering its relevance and importance. Following that, we proceed to identify the pro- tocols for carrying out the review. In this case, the research is centred only on articles of recognized academic validity, based on the impact factor of the journal where they have been published. The main collection of Web of Science was used as the most adequate option. This criterion has been used in prior literature reviews (e.g. Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019). Based on the aforementioned, a review of the literature was carried out with the aim of identifying the relevant arti- cles. For this, the key words: “Family business” or “Family firms” or “Family firm” or “Family enterprise” were used and combined with “Reputation” or “Family firm Identity” or “Image transfer” or “Corporate brand identity” which are the constructs related to the management of family identity. The key words were reviewed considering their presence in the title, summary or key words, taking into account the database of Web of Science, including the databases of the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts & Hu- manities Citation Index (A&HCI), and excluding the arti- cles in the Book Citation Index- Science (BKCI-S) and the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). Publications in journals in the list of emerging sources were not included in the final list of articles. The search produced a sample of 73 articles, of which 17 were eliminated as they had no relation to the search. The final sample is of 56 articles. Table 2 provides a list of the number of works selected. Table 1 Theoretical perspective on reputation in family businesses Theoretical Perspective Authors Reputation and priority for socio-emotional wealth Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, (2013); Berrone et al. (2010); Lohe & Calabrò (2017) Influence of reputation on corporate social responsibility Dyer & Whetten (2006); Peake et al. (2015); Block et al. (2013) Reputation and information to the market Chen et al. (2010); Micelotta & Raynard (2011) Source: Prepared by authors Even with the strategic value of reputation and the family identity of a firm, the research surrounding this topic is still incipient (Sageder et al., 2018). Firms use different types of communicational strategies in which some seek to further exhibit their family identity while others hide it (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011), but the level of effectiveness of each of these is not clear. This article shows that, globally, the reputation and transmission of family identity of firms is a recurring topic in business administration, business and economics journals. It also reveals that the methodologies used are mostly of a quantitative type. The studies that re- late family identity and reputation with the family property of a firm have been published in the principal journals of the collection of Web of Science (88% in Q1 y Q2). The results of this review of the literature show that the majority of the articles analysed are focussed on understanding the sourc- es of the advantages of reputation that family firms would have (27% of the publications). 8 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 Table 2 Publications about reputation and transmission of family identity of the company by journal Journal Publications Impact Factor Quartil Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 7 6,193 Q1 Family Business Review 6 6,188 Q1 Journal of Management Studies 1 5,839 Q1 Journal of Accounting Research 1 4,891 Q1 Journal of Financial Economics 1 4,693 Q1 Management Science 1 4,219 Q1 Journal of Business Research 2 4,028 Q1 Journal of Business Ethics 1 3,796 Q1 Journal of Product Innovation Management 2 3,781 Q1 International Small Business Journal 1 3,706 Q1 Human Resource Management Review 1 3,625 Q1 Organization Studies 1 3,543 Q1 Corporate Governance: An International Review 1 3,390 Q1 BRQ-Business Research Quarterly 1 3,250 Q2 Journal of Family Business Strategy 6 3,225 Q2 Journal of Small Business Management 1 3,120 Q2 European Management Journal 1 2,985 Q2 Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 2,956 Q2 Business Horizons 2 2,828 Q2 British Journal of Management 1 2,750 Q2 Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1 2,737 Q2 Global Strategy Journal 1 2,730 Q2 Sustainability 2 2,592 Q2 Review of Managerial Science 1 2,393 Q2 Journal of Corporate Finance 1 2,349 Q1 Emerging Markets Review 1 2,108 Q1 Journal of Business Economics And Management 1 1,855 Q2 Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 2 1,562 Q2 Psychology & Marketing 1 1,882 Q3 Scandinavian Journal of Management 1 1,415 Q3 European Journal of International Management 1 1,349 Q4 Journal of Organizational Change Management 1 1,185 Q4 Journal of Management & Organization 2 1,021 Q4 Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung Und Praxis 1 0,186 Q4 Source: Prepared by authors 9 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 Results Evolution of the Literature about Reputation and Transmission of Family Identity in Family Firms The first article in the list of works analysed was pub- lished in the year 2000 by Marcelo Paladino in the Journal of Business Research. This work, based on a case study, makes it clear that reputation and family identity are critical elements for the development of these firms and deserve to be researched. However, it was necessary for six years to pass before this idea began to be developed at an em- pirical level. Along these lines, Dyer and Whetten (2006) published a study in the journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice where they found that family firms are more socially responsible than their non-family peers and they attributed this behaviour to the concern for preserving their image and reputation, as well as the desire to protect the as- sets of the family. This article was the beginning of a series of publications that analysed the phenomenon of reputation and transmission of family identity of these firms. These publications consider that family ownership influences the identity of a business (Zellweger et al., 2010) because of the family’s involvement in the management and/or direction of the business (Chen et al., 2008). Participation contributes to the creation of a family identity (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013) that is impacted by the company’s financial and non-financial results (Dyer & Whetten, 2006). Family members identify more strongly with the family business (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), adopting long-term per- spectives (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015) and promoting trans-generational control (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Zell- weger et al., 2012). Due to the above, these companies are more concerned about social-emotional objectives such as projecting a positive image and reputation of the company and family (Berrone et al., 2010; Deephouse and Jaskiewicz, 2013). The data shows that the number of publications and cites began to grow year by year and reached its maximum in the year 2019. These data show the great influence this topic has had over the last few years. Figure 1 shows the evolution of publications and cites on the topic. The analysis of the results allows us to identify that the relationship between the reputation and communication of family identity of an enterprise has multiple effects and would have an impact not only at the level of the consum- ers, but also at that of other stakeholders. Thus, publications are found in multiple fields such as finance, marketing and general administration. The greater part of these works has been published by high impact journals (88% in Q1 and Q2). The following journals are the ones that have the most space for the dissemination of the topic: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (7), Family Business Review (6), Jour- nal of Family Business Strategy (6). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Publications Citations Figure 1. Evolution of Publications and Cites about Reputation and Transmission of Family Identity of Family Firms Source: Prepared by authors 10 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 The analysis of the relationship between published articles and cites by journal allows us to observe how the research about reputation and transmission of the family identity of the firm has increased the interest of researchers from the year 2000 to now. The data in Table 3 allows us to observe that 26% of the journals analysed make up 55% of the publications and around 50% of the cites. This would confirm the relevance of these journals in the dissemination of these ideas. However, to date, this topic has transcend- ed to a much wider spectrum of journals classified mainly within the sphere of administration and business, but also to others considered to be journals of finance and economics. Thus, for example, journals such as Entrepreneurship The- ory and Practice (7/567), Family Business Review (6/253), Journal of Family Business Strategy (6/110) and Journal of Financial Economics (1/370) have published articles about reputation and transmission of family identity, relating them to diverse topics. Table 3 Number of publications and number of cites of research about reputation and transmission of family identity of the family firm No. Publ./No. Cites Journal 2000-2006 2007-2014 2015-2020 Total Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 1/2 2/168 4/397 7/567 Family Business Review 0/0 4/49 2/204 6/253 Journal of Family Business Strategy 0/0 2/9 4/101 6/110 Business Horizons 0/0 0/0 2/17 2/17 Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 0/0 1/0 1/8 2/8 Journal of Business Research 1/0 0/0 1/2 2/2 Journal of Management & Organization 0/0 1/9 1/23 2/32 Journal of Product Innovation Management 0/0 0/0 2/48 2/48 Sustainability 0/0 0/0 2/11 2/11 Journal of Financial Economics 0/0 1/87 0/283 1/370 Journal of Management Studies 0/0 1/13 0/190 1/203 British Journal of Management 0/0 0/0 1/12 1/12 BRQ-Business Research Quarterly 0/0 0/0 1/2 1/2 Corporate Governance: An International Review 0/0 0/0 1/1 1/1 Emerging Markets Review 0/0 0/0 1/5 1/5 European Journal Of International Management 0/0 0/0 1/10 1/10 Others 0/0 7/121 11/331 18/452 Total 2/2 19/456 35/1645 56/2103 Source: Prepared by authors Methods Used in the Research on Reputation in Family Firms In relation to the research methods used in this topic, 82% (46 works) of the articles of the sample were identi- fied as empirical, while 18% (10) were theoretical works. Starting from the empirical articles, the quantitative re- search has been of greater relevance in the journals anal- ysed, representing 63% of the sample, while the qualitative type works represent 18% of the total sample. On the other hand, it was observed that only one work uses mixed meth- ods to advance the understanding of the topic. These arti- cles considered mostly a sample of general companies from multiple economic sectors/industries (73%) when studying mainly companies belonging mainly to stock exchanges. These studies mostly considered samples with mostly large companies (58%), while only three articles exclusively an- alysed family identity in the context of small companies. The results of the research show that the empirical studies used longitudinal and cross-sectional data. 57% (32 works) utilized cross sectional data, while 25% (14 works) carried out longitudinal studies (see Table 4). 11 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 Discussion The analysis of the selected articles generated a group- ing of the works into seven large topics. Table 5 shows the topics analysed, the articles associated with each topic and their impact. Sources of Advantages of Reputation in Family Firms This topic is centred on understanding the sources of the advantages in reputation of family firms. Fifteen articles account for more than 50% of the total number of cites, the great majority of the works suggest that the priority in pre- serving socioemotional wealth (SEW) is the main reason why these firms achieve a better reputation (e.g. Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). This perspective sustains that fami- ly enterprises decide mainly based on the need to preserve a set of non-economic assets, with reputation among them (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). The priority of preserving the family reputation (as a mechanism to enhance socioemotional wealth) would explain the importance that these firms grant to reaching non-financial objectives, their keen sensitivity to social problems, their concern for preserving the trust of their shareholders and the keeping of their commitments to other interest groups such as the state (tax office) (Chen et al., 2010; Isakov & Weisskopf, 2015; Van Gils et al., 2014; Zellweger et al., 2013). Implicit in this is the idea that the family identity and its values are at the centre of the deci- sions that determine the reputation of the firm. Along these lines, the literature analysed highlights the importance of leadership styles, the long-term vision, the sustainability of the business and the intention to pass on the business to the next generation as relevant factors in the socioemotional priority of reputation (Hedberg & Luchak, 2018; Jaskiewicz et al., 2016; Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015; López-Pérez et al., 2018; Van Gils et al., 2019). Critical decisions associ- ated with the design of the policy of corporate governance and the composition of boards are also considered as signs that determine reputation before banks and shareholders (Dibrell et al., 2019; Samara et al., 2019). Reputation and its Effects on Strategic Behaviour Ten works in this section account for 18% of the pub- lications and 8% of the total cites generated. These explain how the interest in maintaining a favourable family reputa- tion affects strategic decisions of family enterprises. They conclude that the interest in non-financial objectives (like maintaining a positive reputation) affects decisions such as the adoption of new technologies, investment in R&D, in- ternational expansion and the social responsibility of these firms. In terms of the decisions in the adoption of new tech- nologies, the priority of maintaining a good reputation is positively aligned with the willingness of the CEO to devel- op these kinds of projects (Kammerlander & Ganter, 2015). The same happens with respect to the decisions of R&D, as this type of initiative would be seen as an element that allows the firm to maintain required standards of quality and social responsibility (Brinkerink & Bammens, 2018). In relation to social responsibility, it is observed that family companies increase the volume of their philanthropic do- nations especially when they have the intention of carrying out succession processes (He & Yu, 2019). This would be a way of strengthening the family reputation as an asset for the next generation. Other studies point out that these firms tend to integrate and maintain control of the assets when internationalizing to protect their reputation in the new mar- kets (Yamanoi & Asaba, 2018). The priority on reputation would also positively align with entrepreneurial behaviour in this type of enterprise (Llanos-Contreras & Alonso-Dos-Santos, 2018). Being rec- ognized as highly entrepreneurial allows them to convert reputation into a factor of attraction in new business oppor- tunities (Sieger et al., 2011). On the other hand, Samara and Arenas (2017) propose that fair labour practices are also a priority for their importance in maintaining the reputation of the family. This idea has recently been confirmed on an empirical level by Kang and Kim (2020) who conclude that the managers of family businesses pay greater attention to the labour policies that improve relationships with employ- ees. Table 4 Research methods used in works on reputation and trans- mission of family identity of the family firm Research Methodologies Number of Articles Percentage Quantitative 35 63% Theoretical 10 18% Qualitative 10 18% Mixed 1 2% Total 56 100% Cross-sectional 32 57% Longitudinal 14 25% Literature Review 10 18% Total 56 100% Source: Prepared by authors 12 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021 / 06-18 Table 5 Articles about reputation in family firms, publications (N ° / %) and cites (N ° / %) by topic Topic Articles by author N° publ. / N° cites % publ. / % cites Sources of advantages of repu- tation Dyer and Whetten (2006); Block (2010); Chen et al. (2010); Zellweger et al. (2013); Vardaman and Gondo (2014); Van Gils et al. (2014); Le Breton-Miller and Miller (2015); Isakov and Weisskopf (2015); Jaskiewicz et al. (2016); Lampel et al. (2017); López-Pérez et al. (2018); Hedberg and Luchak (2018); Samara et al. (2019); Van Gils et al. (2019); Dibrell et al. (2019) 15/1097 27%/52% Reputation and its effects on strategic behaviour Sieger et al. (2011); Kammerlander and Ganter (2015); Samara and Arenas (2017); Kabbach de Castro et al. (2017); Lohe and Calabrò (2017); Brinkerink and Bammens (2018); Yamanoi and Asaba (2018); Llanos-Contreras and Alonso-Dos-Santos (2018); He and Yu (2019); Kang and Kim (2020) 10/158 18%/8% Reputation and its effects on shareholders and the financial market Chen et al. (2008); Sue et al. (2013); Ding and Pukthuanthong (2013); Wang and Ye (2015); Ma et al. (2016); Ahlers et al. (2017); González et al. (2019); Fang et al. (2019); Santiago et al. (2019) 9/249 16%/12% Dissemination of the family identity and its effect on consu- mer response Paladino (2000); Parmentier (2011); Binz and Smit (2013); Binz et al. (2013); Diéguez-Soto et al. (2017); Beck and Prugl (2018); Gavana et al. (2018); Schellong et al. (2019); Alonso-Dos- -Santos et al. (2019) 9/104 16%/5% Reputation and its effect on performance Danes et al. (2008); Huybrechts et al. (2011); Deephouse and Jaskiewicz (2013); Basco (2014) 4/303 7%/14% Dissemination strategies Micelotta and Raynard (2011); Botero et al. (2013); Binz Astrachan et al. (2018); Beck et al. (2020) 4/127 7%/6% Transmission of identity towards internal stakeholders Parada and Viladás (2010); Wielsma and Brunninge (2019); Ponroy et al. (2019) 3/27 5%/1% Others Du et al. (2016); Sageder et al. (2018) 2/38 4%/2% Source: Prepared by authors 13 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 Reputation and its Effects on Shareholders and the Financial Market This topic captures 16% of the publications and 12% of the total cites. These works show how the interest in pre- serving reputation in family firms influences the manage- ment of financial information, its communication and the effect on investors or other stakeholders. The priority on reputation diminishes the probability that they would falsify financial reports, increases the preciseness of these reports and encourages them not to hide negative news about prof- its (Chen et al., 2008; Ma et al., 2016; Sue et al., 2013). All of this shows a high priority on transparency to maintain the trust of the market, which would increase the probability of being considered a solid investment by investors (Santiago et al., 2019). In terms of what the research says about communicat- ing reputation and family identity, a study based on the Ini- tial Public Offering (IPO), found that the tone of the com- munications generated by the company affects the market valuation of the firm (González et al., 2019). For their part, Fang et al. (2019) observed that negative actions by mem- bers of the family damage the credibility of the business and Wang and Ye (2015) found that negative information in the media about the company negatively affects the reputation and perception of the level of risk of the company. Dissemination of Family Identity and its Effect on Consumer Response This section captures 16% of the publications. The data shows that more than 50% of these studies have been published in the last three years. This would, on one hand, explain the low number of cites and would, on the other, show that the understanding of this phenomenon is still very incipient. Already in the first two articles included in this re- search (based on case studies), the value of reputation for commercial strategy and brand creation for these companies is known intuitively (Paladino, 2000; Parmentier, 2011). The empirical works provide relevant information to com- prehend the responses of consumers to communicational stimuli based on the transmission of family identity. Thus, Binz et al. (2013) found that promoting the family status of an enterprise strengthened the consumer preference for products and services offered by family firms. Along the same lines, Binz and Smit (2013) added that the relational qualities of these companies have an influence in that the community perceives them as economic agents that are both responsible and committed to their surroundings. More recent studies confirm the positive effects of communicating the family identity on consumer response. Diéguez-Soto et al. (2017) developed a study focussed on hotels that inform their family identity on electronic plat- forms and concluded that this would increase their level of popularity. Beck and Prügl (2018) concluded that commu- nicating the family identity of a firm positively influenc- es consumer trust and this in turn influences intention to purchase. Along the same lines, Alonso-Dos-Santos et al. (2019) found that transmitting the family identity of firms in their webpages positively influences the attitude towards the website and intention to purchase. Reputation and its Effect on Performance The works in this section show the strategic effects of the reputation of the family firm and confirm potential com- petitive advantages caused by them. Four articles account for 14% of the total cites. The works analysed in this section indicate that family firms can benefit from a positive repu- tation by expanding their networks and obtaining greater trust, collaboration and identification from different stake- holders (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Huybrechts et al., 2011). It was also observed that the priority on reputation in small and medium enterprises is a barometer of the quality of their products and services (Danes et al., 2008). Coherent with this, Basco (2014) concluded that family firms obtain better results following a strategy of differentiation and bal- ancing decision-making oriented to family and business or following a cost strategy, but putting the business first in the decisions. Dissemination Strategies These works report which strategies are used by fami- ly firms to communicate their identity and reputation. They conclude that family enterprises adopt brand strategies to communicate their family nature (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018), as they can use the brand in this way as a source of differentiation. Micelotta and Raynard (2011) found that family firms use brand strategies to show the connection between the family and the company (family preservation), to show the connection of the family with the products and services of the company (family wealth generation) and to highlight organizational components of the firm (family subordination). This communication of family identity has gathered strength with the rise of the internet. Web pages have become a medium used by family firms to highlight their family identity (Botero et al., 2013). The degree of intensity with which companies communicate their family identity is related to the type of market in which they com- pete and the type of stakeholders with whom they wish to 14 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 communicate (Beck et al., 2020). Transmission of Identity Toward Internal Stakeholders Three articles that represent only 1% of the cites talk about how the family identity is transmitted to members of future generations and workers in the company. Parada and Viladás (2010) found that narratives/stories are a medium to transmit values to the following generations, but this identi- ty is not only transmitted by the family. Wielsma and Brun- ninge (2019) found that family identity is also influenced by the identity of the firm, pointing out that this is a dynamic and bidirectional process that would influence decisions at a family and individual level. Finally, Ponroy et al. (2019) contribute to this discussion by proposing a model of the process of maintenance of the family identity where three mechanisms of preservation of family identity (transmis- sion, unification and modelling) are identified. Others Two other studies in the set, which have been cited 38 times (2% of the total cites), could not be grouped in any of the previous categories. The first of these analyses how the coverage of the media plays a role in encouraging family firms in China to establish ethical standards, con- cern themselves with their socially responsible image and increase their philanthropic actions (Du et al., 2016). On the other hand, the work of Sageder et al. (2018) carries out a review of the literature which analyses how particular characteristics of family enterprises (e.g. participation and the control of family ownership) influence the priority to create and preserve a good reputation. This study confirms the positive influence between reputation and organization- al success. This is coherent with the findings and discussion of this work. Conclusions and Future Research This article develops a systematic review of the lit- erature about reputation and transfer of family identity of family firms. The evolution of the research into this topic and its impact over time was analysed, and seven topics of relevant research were identified, and their main contribu- tions discussed. The two areas with the greatest number of articles published study the sources of the advantages of reputation in these enterprises and how the priority of preserving reputation influences the strategic behaviours of these companies (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015; Van Gils et al., 2014). These studies conclude that the priority of preserving socioemotional wealth of reputation is the main factor that leads to taking actions that benefit the image of the enterprise (Lohe & Calabrò, 2017; Yamanoi & Asaba, 2018). This priority would have, on one hand, a direct effect on reputation and, on the other, would decisively influence strategic actions such as socially responsible management and/or investments in R&D (Brinkerink & Bammens, 2018; He & Yu, 2019). Some articles add that the long-term vi- sion of family firms would play a role in this dynamic (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015). The aforementioned contri- butions have been important, but a central element in the conceptual framework of socioemotional wealth is the situ- ational context in which decisions are made (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Llanos-Contreras et al., 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to advance in this direction, identifying if the pri- ority of reputation is maintained under financial stress of the firm and if their strategic behaviour (in which their reputa- tion is sustained) does not change in this scenario. On the other end of the spectrum, the topics which have generated the lowest number of publications refer to the way in which the family identity is transmitted to in- ternal stakeholders, the strategies of dissemination towards external groups and the effects of reputation on perfor- mance (Basco, 2014; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011; Wielsma & Brunninge, 2019). Even when the research on reputation and performance is not very extensive, there is consensus about its positive relationship (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013). Thus, in this topic, future research can use alterna- tive performance indicators such as the effect of reputation on marketing and advertising costs and the social identifi- cation of family members (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013) and variations in the characteristics of the sample. On the other hand, interesting opportunities are observed for the understanding of the phenomenon of the dissemination (be it external or internal). It is possible to advance in identify- ing generic communications strategies of the family iden- tity that integrate the existing literature in the topic. Still more importantly, it is possible to advance in determining the impact of the different strategies and their effect on sev- eral stakeholders (for example, product/services market vs labour market). It would also be interesting to evaluate the effect of communicating family identity through different mediums. Two other topics that are dealt with in the analysed lit- erature study the phenomenon of reputation, transference of family identity and its effects on financial markets and on consumers. The research surrounding reputation and fi- nancial markets discusses the priority that these enterprises place on transparently informing the market of their ac- tions as a way of preserving their reputation (Santiago et al., 2019). In addition, they discuss the effect that this has on their valuation by the market (González et al., 2019). In 15 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 relation to the market of products and services, there is a positive response from consumers to the communication of family identity (Binz et al., 2013), but this needs to continue being measured as there is literature that places doubt on whether the associations that people make with the concept of “family business” is positive or negative (Botero et al., 2018). This opens opportunities to compare the response of consumers in the market of final products vs industrial markets. This could also be a relevant topic to study in the response of investors in the case of financial markets. Another relevant issue arises when comparing the sam- ple size used in the research. Studies involving small and medium-sized family businesses agree on the importance of maintaining a positive reputation (Danes et al., 2008; Lla- nos-Contreras & Alonso-Dos-Santos, 2018). Basco (2014) reveals the link between the differentiation strategy and positive reputation and the benefits of incorporating the family in the decision-making of these companies. How- ever, for the family this connection can lead to difficulties such as frustration, loss of family harmony, or loss of family privacy (Wielsma & Brunninge, 2019; Beck et al., 2020). It would be relevant to explore further how the priority of reputation impacts on smaller businesses. This work makes, at least, the following contributions: First, it provides a revision of the current state and evolution of the literature surrounding this topic. Secondly, it discuss- es the different currents of research related to reputation and transference of family identity, identifying contributions and impact. Lastly, it identifies gaps in the research that can orient the development of future studies. In spite of the aforementioned, it is not free of limitations. From the point of view of method, it only includes publications from Web of Science and while this allows for the incorporation of the most influential publications, it does not consider all the available literature on the topic. Future work could include updating this, considering publications available on other platforms such as Scopus. References Ahlers, O., Hack, A., Madison, K., Wright, M., & Kell- ermanns, F. W. (2017). Is it all about money?–Af- fective commitment and the difference between family and non‐family sellers in buyouts. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 159–179. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8551.12178 Alonso-Dos-Santos, M., Llanos-Contreras, O., & Farías, P. (2019). Family firms’ identity communication and consumers’ product involvement impact on consumer response. Psychology & Marketing, 36(8), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21212 Baier-Fuentes, H., Hormiga, E., Miravitlles, P., & Blan- co-Mesa, F. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A critical review of the research field. European Journal of International Management, 13(3), 381–412. https:// doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2019.099427 Basco, R. (2014). Exploring the influence of the fami- ly upon firm performance: Does strategic behaviour matter? International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 967–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613484946 Beck, S., & Prügl, R. (2018). Family firm reputation and humanization: Consumers and the trust advantage of family firms under different conditions of brand fa- miliarity. Family Business Review, 31(4), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518792692 Beck, S., Prügl, R., & Walter, K. (2020). Communicating the family firm brand: Antecedents and performance effects. European Management Journal, 38(1), 95– 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.008 Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kin- tana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-con- trolled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113. https://doi.org/10.2189/ asqu.2010.55.1.82 Binz Astrachan, C., Botero, I., Astrachan, J. H., & Prügl, R. (2018). Branding the family firm: A review, integra- tive framework proposal, and research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 3–15. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.01.002 Binz, C., Hair, J. F., Pieper, T. M., & Baldauf, A. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Busi- ness Strategy, 4(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfbs.2012.12.004 Binz, C., & Smit, W. (2013). So you’re a family firm-who cares?!? Exploring the effects of family firm reputa- tion. Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung Und Praxis, 65(2), 123–135. Block, J. (2010). Family management, family owner- ship, and downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Family Business Review, 23(2), 109-130. https://doi. org/10.1177/089448651002300202 Block, J., Miller, D., Jaskiewicz, P. & Spiegel, F. (2013). Economic and technological importance of inno- vations in large family and founder firms. Fam- ily Business Review, 26(2), 180-199. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894486513477454 Botero, I., Binz Astrachan, C., & Calabrò, A. (2018). A receiver’s approach to family business brands: Ex- ploring individual associations with the term “family firm.” Journal of Family Business Management, 8(2), 16 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-03-2017-0010 Botero, I., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official websites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.11.004 Brinkerink, J., & Bammens, Y. (2018). Family influence and R&D spending in Dutch manufacturing SMEs: The role of identity and socioemotional decision consid- erations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12428 Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics, 95(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.02.003 Chen, S., Chen, X. I. A., & Cheng, Q. (2008). Do family firms provide more or less voluntary disclosure? Jour- nal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 499–536. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00288.x Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defin- ing the family business by behavior. Entrepreneur- ship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39. https://doi. org/10.1177/104225879902300402 Danes, S. M., Loy, J. T., & Stafford, K. (2008). Business planning practices of family‐owned firms within a quality framework. Journal of Small Business Man- agement, 46(3), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-627X.2008.00250.x Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a stra- tegic resource: An integration of mass commu- nication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. https://doi. org/10.1177/014920630002600602 Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examina- tion of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 42(2), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non‐family firms? An in- tegration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337– 360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12015 Dibrell, C., Marshall, D. R., Palar, J. M., & Gentry, R. J. (2019). New director selection during growth in fam- ily-influenced and lone founder firms: An identity fit perspective. Journal of Business Research, 101, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.005 Diéguez-Soto, J., Fernández-Gámez, M. A., & Sán- chez-Marín, G. (2017). Family involvement and ho- tel online reputation. BRQ Business Research Quar- terly, 20(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. brq.2017.05.001 Ding, H., & Pukthuanthong, K. (2013). Legitimacy signals and family IPO performances. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(1), 156–181. https:// doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.711359 Du, X., Pei, H., Du, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2016). Media coverage, family ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from China. Journal of Management & Or- ganization, 22(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jmo.2015.28 Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 30(6), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2006.00151.x Fang, H., Siau, K. L., Memili, E., & Dou, J. (2019). Cognitive antecedents of family business bias in investment deci- sions: A commentary on “Risky decisions and the fam- ily firm bias: An experimental study based on prospect theory.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796073 Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press. Gavana, G., Gottardo, P., & Moisello, M. A. (2018). Do customers value CSR disclosure? Evidence from Ital- ian family and non-family firms. Sustainability, 10(5), 1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051642 Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). So- cioemotional wealth and business risks in family-con- trolled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106 González, M., Guzmán, A., Téllez, D., & Trujillo, M. A. (2019). Governance, sentiment analysis, and initial public offering underpricing. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(3), 226–244. https://doi. org/10.1111/corg.12272 Habbershon, T. G., & Pistrui, J. (2002). Enterprising fam- ilies domain: Family‐influenced ownership groups in pursuit of transgenerational wealth. Family Busi- ness Review, 15(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-6248.2002.00223.x Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm perfor- mance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00053-3 He, W., & Yu, X. (2019). Paving the way for children: Fami- ly firm succession and corporate philanthropy in China. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 46(9–10), https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796073 17 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 1237–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12402 Hedberg, L. M., & Luchak, A. A. (2018). Founder attach- ment style and its effects on socioemotional wealth objectives and HR system design. Human Resource Management Review, 28(1), 33–45. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.004 Huybrechts, J., Voordeckers, W., Lybaert, N., & Vande- maele, S. (2011). The distinctiveness of family-firm in- tangibles: A review and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(2), 268– 287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200001656 Isakov, D., & Weisskopf, J. P. (2015). Pay-out policies in founding family firms. Journal of Corporate Fi- nance, 33, 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorp- fin.2015.01.003 Jaskiewicz, P., Lutz, E., & Godwin, M. (2016). For mon- ey or love? Financial and socioemotional consider- ations in family firm succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(5), 1179–1190. https://doi. org/10.1111/etap.12149 Kabbach de Castro, L. R., Aguilera, R. V, & Crespí-Cladera, R. (2017). Family firms and compliance: Reconciling the conflicting predictions within the socioemotional wealth perspective. Family Business Review, 30(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516685239 Kammerlander, N., & Ganter, M. (2015). An attention‐based view of family firm adaptation to discontinuous tech- nological change: Exploring the role of family CEOs’ noneconomic goals. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jpim.12205 Kang, J. K., & Kim, J. (2020). Do family firms invest more than nonfamily firms in employee-friendly policies? Management Science, 66(3), 1300–1324. https://doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3231 Lampel, J., Bhalla, A., & Ramachandran, K. (2017). Family values and inter-institutional governance of strategic decision making in Indian family firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(4), 901–930. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10490-017-9509-0 Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2015). The arts and fam- ily business: Linking family-related resources to the market environment. Academy of Management Pro- ceedings, 2015(1), 13248. https://doi.org/10.5465/ ambpp.2015.13248abstract Llanos-Contreras, O., & Alonso-Dos-Santos, M. (2018). Exploring the asymmetric influence of socioemotional wealth priorities on entrepreneurial behaviour in fami- ly businesses. European Journal of International Man- agement, 12(5–6), 576–595. https://doi.org/10.1504/ EJIM.2018.094458 Llanos-Contreras, O., Jabri, M., & Sharma, P. (2019). Tem- porality and the role of shocks in explaining changes in socioemotional wealth and entrepreneurial orien- tation of small and medium family enterprises. Inter- national Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1269–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365- 019-00595-4 Lohe, F. W., & Calabrò, A. (2017). Please do not disturb! Differentiating board tasks in family and non-family firms during financial distress. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scaman.2017.01.001 López-Pérez, M., Melero-Polo, I., Vázquez-Carrasco, R., & Cambra-Fierro, J. (2018). Sustainability and business outcomes in the context of SMEs: Comparing fami- ly firms vs. non-family firms. Sustainability, 10(11), 4080. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114080 Ma, L., Ma, S., & Tian, G. (2016). Family control, accounting misstatements, and market reactions to restatements: Evidence from China. Emerging Markets Review, 28, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2016.06.001 Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or re- vealing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 197– 216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511407321 Paladino, M. (2000). Turri, S.A. Journal of Business Re- search, 50(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00104-0 Parada, M. J., & Viladás, H. (2010). Narratives: A powerful device for values transmission in family businesses. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(2), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811011031346 Parmentier, M. A. (2011). When David met Victoria: Forging a strong family brand. Family Business Review, 24(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511408415 Peake, W. O., Davis, P. E., & Cox, M. Z. (2015). Being good for goodness sake: The Influence of family in- volvement on motivations to engage in small business social responsibility. Journal of Small Business Strat- egy, 25(1), 1-25. Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and ce- lebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1131–1152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533222 Ponroy, J. V., Lê, P., & Pradies, C. (2019). In a family way? A model of family firm identity maintenance by non-family members. Organization Studies, 40(6), 859–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619836707 Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., & Petkova, A. P. (2010). Reputation as an intangible asset: Reflections on the- https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511408415 18 J. Cuevas Lizama, O. Llanos Contreras, & M. Alonso Dos Santos Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 31, No. 2 (2021) / 06-18 ory and methods in two empirical studies of business school reputations. Journal of Management, 36(3), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343208 Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). Image and reputation of family firms: A sys- tematic literature review of the state of research. Re- view of Managerial Science, 12(1), 335–377. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0216-x Samara, G., & Arenas, D. (2017). Practicing fairness in the family business workplace. Business Horizons, 60(5), 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.008 Samara, G., Jamali, D., & Lapeira, M. (2019). Why and how should SHE make her way into the family busi- ness boardroom? Business Horizons, 62(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.09.001 Santiago, A., Pandey, S., & Manalac, M. T. (2019). Family presence, family firm reputation and perceived finan- cial performance: Empirical evidence from the Phil- ippines. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.02.002 Schellong, M., Kraiczy, N. D., Malär, L., & Hack, A. (2019). Family firm brands, perceptions of doing good, and consumer happiness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5), 921–946. https://doi. org/10.1177/1042258717754202 Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., Nason, R. S., & Clinton, E. (2011). Portfolio entrepreneurship in family firms: A resource‐ based perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Jour- nal, 5(4), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.120 Sue, S. H., Chin, C. L., & Chan, A. L. C. (2013). Exploring the causes of accounting restatements by family firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 40(9–10), 1068–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12040 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed man- agement knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Van Gils, A., Dibrell, C., Neubaum, D. O., & Craig, J. B. (2014). Social issues in the family enterprise. Fam- ily Business Review, 27(3), 193–205. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894486514542398 Van Gils, A., Huybrechts, J., Minola, T., & Cassia, L. (2019). Unraveling the impact of family antecedents on family firm image: A serial multiple-mediation model. Jour- nal of Family Business Strategy, 10(1), 17–27. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.02.001 Vardaman, J. M., & Gondo, M. B. (2014). Socioemotion- al wealth conflict in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1317–1322. https://doi. org/10.1111/etap.12126 Wang, J., & Ye, K. (2015). Media coverage and firm valua- tion: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 501–511. Wielsma, A. J., & Brunninge, O. (2019). “Who am I? Who are we?” Understanding the impact of family business identity on the development of individual and family identity in business families. Journal of Family Busi- ness Strategy, 10(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfbs.2019.01.006 Yamanoi, J., & Asaba, S. (2018). The impact of family own- ership on establishment and ownership modes in for- eign direct investment: The moderating role of corrup- tion in host countries. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1198 Zellweger, T. (2017). Managing the family business: Theo- ry and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing. Zellweger, T., Eddleston, K., & Kellermanns, F. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing fam- ily firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003 Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239-250. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.10.001 Zellweger, T., Nason, R., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneur- ship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00466.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003