Harnessing social capital in family firms: unlocking new insights and future directions

Abstract

Social capital (SC) is deeply embedded in the dynamics of family firms—the world’s most prevalent business form—shaping interactions within the family, across the organization, and with external stakeholders. Despite growing scholarly interest, research on SC in family firms remains fragmented, often examining its dimensions in isolation or within narrowly defined contexts. This study offers a comprehensive and integrative perspective on SC as a multidimensional and ambivalent resource in family firms, highlighting both its strategic benefits and its potential constraints.

Drawing on a bibliometric–systematic literature review of 222 articles published in leading journals, we identify four thematic domains: (1) social and business networks, (2) governance and succession, (3) innovation and knowledge management, and (4) family SC. Across these domains, SC operates through the interplay of structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions, as well as through bonding and bridging mechanisms that connect internal cohesion with external openness. The review reveals key theoretical tensions, including the tradition–innovation paradox and the “dark sides” of SC, such as overembeddedness, groupthink, and strategic rigidity.

Building on these insights, we develop a structured research agenda with short-, medium-, and long-term priorities. These priorities emphasize the need for dynamic and multilevel models of SC, deeper theoretical integration with socioemotional wealth and dynamic capabilities, and comparative research across cultural and institutional contexts. By consolidating dispersed knowledge and theorizing from emergent patterns in the literature, this review advances theory and offers practical guidance for leveraging SC in family firms.

1 Introduction

Family firms (FFs) represent a distinctive and significant organizational form worldwide (Rovelli et al. 2022 ) and are characterized by the overlap between family and business systems (Chrisman et al. 2012 ). This duality creates a complex environment in which personal relationships and familial values intertwine with business goals and strategic imperatives (Pearson et al. 2008 ), shaping firm culture, decision-making processes, and performance (Chua et al. 1999 ; Chrisman et al. 2012 ).

Within this context, social capital (SC) has attracted increasing attention as a key factor in explaining the mechanisms, relationships, and behaviors of FFs and their long-term sustainability (Pearson et al. 2008 ). Rooted in sociological research, SC refers to the actual or potential resources embedded in social networks (Coleman 1988 ), fostering trust and opportunities for members who may be unavailable to outsiders (Adler and Kwon 2002 ; Tsai and Ghoshal 1998 ). In FFs, the intertwining of family and business subsystems creates distinctive and enduring relationships, laying a stronger foundation for SC development than in nonfamily firms (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Pearson et al. 2008 ). SC in FFs thus encompasses both internal relationships among family members involved in the business and external connections with stakeholders, whose interaction shapes firm behavior and outcomes (Adler and Kwon 2002 ).

Despite the acknowledged importance of SC, the existing research remains fragmented, lacking a comprehensive synthesis of its mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes (Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2023 ; Stasa and Machek 2022 ). Studies have reported both positive and negative effects (Reiners and Kammerlander 2024 ), yet the determinants shaping its influence and the specific conditions under which SC acts as a source of advantage or constraint remain underexplored (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ). Moreover, little is known about its mediating and moderating effects on FF behavior (Aragón-Amonarriz et al. 2019 ; Stasa and Machek 2023 ). The complexity of SC research on FFs further stems from the need to examine it within both familial and business contexts, where norms of reciprocity span generations and exchange mechanisms are diffuse (Sharma 2008 ). As a result, the conceptualization and influence of SC in FFs remain subjects of ongoing academic debate (Stasa and Machek 2022 ; Virk et al. 2024 ; Yates et al. 2023 ). Addressing this gap is essential for delineating SC boundaries, explaining heterogeneity among FFs, and advancing family business theory (Daspit et al. 2021 ).

The existing literature reviews have provided useful insights but remain limited in scope. For instance, Sanchez-Famoso et al. ( 2020 ) focused on internal SC, Yates et al. ( 2023 ) examined social networks, and Virk et al. ( 2024 ) analyzed social exchange relationships, each providing valuable but partial insights. To date, only one review has specifically addressed SC in FFs—Stasa and Machek ( 2022 )—which was based on 69 papers from a restricted set of journals. Although valuable, its narrow scope and selective inclusion criteria leave significant gaps in understanding the intellectual structure and thematic evolution of the field.

Our study addresses these limitations by analyzing 222 articles indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database and published in the journals listed in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) until December 2024. By combining bibliometric techniques with systematic review principles (B-SLR), we offer a comprehensive and replicable synthesis that maps intellectual structures, identifies thematic clusters, and elucidates emerging research directions. This dual approach ensures both breadth and depth, providing a more holistic understanding of SC in FFs than prior reviews and ultimately creating space for theorization by moving beyond descriptive accumulation toward integrative interpretation (Marzi et al. 2025 ), in line with recent calls to frame literature reviews as independent and theory-oriented studies (Kraus et al. 2022 , 2024 ). Guided by this approach, we sought to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. How has the scientific research on SC in FFs evolved over time?

RQ2. Who are the main contributors (e.g., key publications, journals, and authors) to the development of this research field?

RQ3. What are the predominant research themes and topics?

RQ4. What are the emerging research trends, and where can future research on SC in FFs be directed?

Overall, by systematically mapping and interpreting prior research, this study sought to provide a robust foundation to advance theoretical understanding, inform managerial practice, and identify key avenues to guide future research in this evolving field.

2 Deconstructing social capital in family firms

Grounded in the intersection of “social” and “capital”, SC theory rests on the premise that the social networks and the relationships embedded within them constitute valuable resources that individuals and organizations can leverage to achieve their objectives (Adler and Kwon 2002 ; Tsai and Ghoshal 1998 ). Defined formally by Nahapiet and Ghoshal ( 1998 ) as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relations possessed by an individual or social unit” (p. 243), this conceptualization highlights that social connections function not merely as interpersonal ties but as economic assets mobilizable for productive purposes (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Gulati 1998 ). These relational networks can manifest as linkages extending beyond the firm’s boundaries ( bridging social capital) or those that remain within the firm ( bonding social capital) (Carr et al. 2011 ; Putnam 2000 ).

This distinction is particularly salient in the context of family firms (FFs), where strong relational ties among family members often emphasize bonding SC over bridging SC (Carr et al. 2011 ; Sanchez-Ruiz et al. 2019 ). Such configurations enhance trust and foster identity continuity (Salvato and Melin 2008 ), enabling the development of firm-specific tacit knowledge. However, they may also constrain access to external resources and novel information (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ). This duality aligns with the network-based view (NBV), which emphasizes the strategic implications of social networks and embeddedness (Gulati 1998 ). From this perspective, social networks act as conduits of information that provide both opportunities and constraints for firms; the embeddedness of firms in these networks can simultaneously restrict and enable the alliances they form. This perspective naturally raises the question of how tie strength shapes the functioning of SC in organizational settings. Distinguishing between strong and weak ties offers a valuable lens for understanding how SC operates in organizational contexts (Granovetter 1983 ). Strong ties, characterized by emotional closeness and frequent interaction, underpin the family’s sense of unity and long-term orientation (Carr et al. 2011 ; Salvato and Melin 2008 ). These close-knit relationships enhance trust, reciprocity, and shared purpose, shaping the firm’s SC and reinforcing its organizational identity and collective vision (Arregle et al. 2007 ). However, overreliance on strong ties may constrain bridging processes essential for opportunity recognition and external collaboration (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Pearson et al. 2008 ; Sharma 2008 ). In contrast, weak ties, which connect individuals across different networks, play a pivotal role in entrepreneurial success and strategic renewal, as they facilitate the flow of nonredundant information and access to external networks (Granovetter 1983 ).

SC in FFs is inherently complex, as it “depends on the values, cooperation, vision, purpose, and trust that exist within the FF” (Sorenson 2011 , p. 35). This complexity reflects not only the intensity of interpersonal bonds but also their structure and function. Consequently, SC is often regarded as a “fluid” and “umbrella” concept because of its multifaceted and context-dependent nature (Adler and Kwon 2002 ). Understanding SC in FFs requires an examination of both its dimensions and functional roles, as these elements determine how it operates and shapes organizational structures and behaviors. Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s ( 1998 ) widely adopted framework—comprising structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions—provides a foundation for analyzing how SC manifests in FFs.

The structural dimension refers to the architecture of the social network and encompasses aspects such as network ties, configurations, roles, rules, and procedures (Coleman 1988 ; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 ). In FFs, this dimension includes both formal and informal structures that connect family and nonfamily members, as well as the extent of linkages to external stakeholders. For instance, an FF with a tightly interconnected network of family members involved in ownership and management may exhibit dense internal networks that enhance coordination and information sharing while also reinforcing limited openness (Carr et al. 2011 ; Pearson et al. 2008 ).

The relational dimension captures the quality of relationships within the network and the norms governing them, particularly trust, reciprocity, and obligations (Lin 1999 ; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 ; Putnam 1995 ). In FFs, this dimension is rooted in shared family history and emotional attachment, which generate high levels of affective trust that extend to the business domain (Carr et al. 2011 ; Pearson et al. 2008 ). While this trust can enhance cooperation, it may also lead to favoritism, limit merit-based decision-making, or hinder the development of bridging ties with nonfamily managers (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ; Kellermanns et al. 2012 ).

The cognitive dimension refers to shared mental models and collective understanding that enable coordinated action and foster a common sense of purpose—both essential for effective information exchange and knowledge creation (Inkpen and Tsang 2005 ; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 ). In FFs, this commitment often manifests through shared family values and a collective vision of legacy preservation and firm culture (Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2014 ). Such cognitive alignment promotes goal congruence and continuity (Carr et al. 2011 ) but may also limit experimentation and openness to divergent perspectives (Reiners and Kammerlander 2024 ).

These dimensions are not mutually exclusive but are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. The structural configuration of ties facilitates relational trust and shared cognition by enabling social interactions, whereas relational and cognitive cohesion strengthen structural density (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 ). However, excessive interdependence may lead to rigidities, as scholars have highlighted the “dark side” of SC. Dense, closed networks may foster groupthink, suppress innovation, and exclude nonfamily professionals, limiting diversity and strategic renewal (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ; Kellermanns et al. 2012 ). As Powell and Smith-Doerr ( 1994 ) cautioned, “the ties that bind may also turn into ties that blind” (p.393). High bonding SC can also crowd out bridging SC, reducing access to external information and markets (Alder and Kwon, 2002 ; Arregle et al. 2007 ). As Anand et al. ( 2025 ) emphasized, these behaviors emerge from intricate interdependencies, emotional relationships, and contradictions between business and family roles, amplifying the complexity of managing SC in FFs. Overall, these dynamics highlight that SC is not inherently beneficial but context dependent and that its effects rely on how FFs manage the tension between internal cohesion and external openness (Coleman 1990 ; Lin 1999 ).

To capture this tension, scholars often conceptualize SC through two functional roles: bonding and bridging (Putnam 2000 ). Bonding SC—rooted in shared identity and strong interpersonal ties—supports internal cohesion, trust, and stewardship behavior (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Sanchez-Ruiz et al. 2019 ). It facilitates the “getting by” function (Putnam 2000 ), strengthening internal cooperation but, when excessive, can hinder adaptability and innovation. In contrast, bridging SC connects the firm to heterogeneous actors, enabling it to “get ahead” through access to diverse information, resources, and perspectives not available within the firm’s homogenous internal network (Lin 1999 ). This tension between bonding SC and bridging SC also reflects the NBV’s emphasis on how network configurations influence resource access and strategic flexibility (Gulati 1998 ). Bridging is particularly important for FFs seeking to integrate external knowledge and foster adaptability in dynamic environments (Pearson et al. 2008 ; Salvato and Melin 2008 ).

In summary, the SC in FFs represents a multifaceted system of internal and external relational resources that underpin both stability and renewal. The key lies in the balance between bonding SC and bridging SC and managing the interplay among their structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions. These factors shape how FFs build, preserve, and extend their distinctive SC (Sanchez-Ruiz et al. 2019 ). Understanding when and how SC acts as a source of advantage or constraint is central to FF research and provides the conceptual foundation for this review. In this bibliometric systematic literature review (B-SLR), these dimensions and functional roles serve as analytical lenses for subsequently interpreting thematic clusters emerging from bibliometric mapping, ensuring coherence between the conceptual framework and the systematic analysis of prior research.

3 Methods and scope of the review

This study adopted a bibliometric systematic literature review (B-SLR) approach, which is consistent with recent advances that frame literature reviews as independent and theory-oriented studies (Kraus et al. 2022 , 2024 ; Marzi et al. 2025 ). To ensure methodological transparency and replicability, we followed a structured protocol that integrated systematic data collection, bibliometric analysis, and a subsequent qualitative literature review of bibliometric outputs. This integration ensured both rigor and interpretive depth in capturing the intellectual structure of the field, in line with recommended multistage SLR designs that combine bibliometric mapping and qualitative synthesis (Sauer and Seuring 2023 ; Öztürk et al. 2024 ; Marzi et al. 2025 ).

Data collection began with the definition of the search strategy grounded in the prior literature on FFs and SC. The Web of Science Core Collection (SSCI and ESCI) was selected as the primary database because of its rigorous indexing standards, emphasis on quality over quantity (Marzi et al. 2025 ), widespread use in major research rankings, and full compatibility with bibliometric tools (Bengoa et al. 2021 ). The search was conducted in January 2025 and covered all publications up to 31 December 2024.

We constructed a Boolean string combining established keywords and variants related to FFs and SC and applied it to titles, abstracts, author keywords, and summary fields. No domain restrictions were applied. The exact search string used was [("family business" OR "family firm" OR "family enterprise*" OR "family own*" OR "family control*" OR "family SME*" OR "family involvement" OR "family capital" OR "founder* firm*") AND ("firm*" OR "business*" OR "enterprise" OR "company")] AND ("social capital"). Only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were considered; therefore, nonacademic articles, book chapters, editorials, and conference papers were excluded. The initial search resulted in the identification of 278 articles. To ensure the quality and reliability of the dataset, we applied a quality filter by retaining only articles published in journals listed in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG), Footnote 1 which reduced the dataset to 236 records. While this choice may exclude relevant contributions from emerging or specialized journals, it reflects a deliberate trade-off between breadth and rigor and aligns with best practices for systematic reviews in established domains (Cordoba et al. 2024 ; Marzi et al. 2025 ; Rabetino et al. 2021 ).

Bibliographic records were exported to Excel for data cleaning, and an automatic duplicate check was performed. As the review relied on a single database (WoS), no duplicated records were identified. A manual screening process was then conducted to ensure conceptual alignment with the focus of the review—SC in FFs. All three coauthors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles. When the focus of a paper could not be clearly established from the title and abstract alone, full texts were consulted. Articles were excluded if they mentioned “family firms” or “social capital” but did not treat either concept as a central focus of analysis, that is, when these terms appeared only incidentally, without being theoretically developed or empirically examined as the object of study. Following this screening procedure, 14 articles were excluded, resulting in a final dataset of 222 unique articles, which constituted the basis for the bibliometric and qualitative analyses (Table 1 provides the complete search protocol).

The consolidated dataset was subjected to two complementary analytical stages, which are consistent with recent methodological guidelines for systematic literature reviews in management research (Sauer and Seuring 2023 ; Kraus et al. 2024 ). First, we applied bibliometric techniques in a transparent and reproducible manner to map the field’s intellectual structure and identify dominant research streams (Öztürk et al. 2024 ). Specifically, we conducted a performance analysis to provide an overview of research productivity and scholarly impact, examining publication trends, leading journals, and influential authors and articles. These indicators were used to trace the evolution of research on SC in FFs and to address RQ1 and RQ2. We subsequently applied bibliographic coupling to uncover the field’s current intellectual configuration and identify its major thematic clusters (RQ3).

Bibliographic coupling and cocitation analysis are two of the most widely used citation-based approaches for delineating the intellectual organization of research domains (Belussi et al. 2019 ). Although both methods reliably cluster more than 90% of a scientific corpus, they differ significantly in analytical orientation. Cocitation analysis is retrospective and involves the association of documents that are jointly cited in subsequent works, thus illuminating the historical intellectual foundations of a field (Kovacs et al. 2015 ). In contrast, coupling based on shared references offers a forward-looking perspective particularly suited to identifying current themes and emerging research directions (Vogel and Güttel, 2013 ); given the review’s aim, this approach was selected because it aligns with our focus on contemporary research streams.

This technique builds on the principle that the greater the number of references that two documents share, the stronger their coupling strength and, therefore, the closer their intellectual proximity (Kessler 1963 ). To operationalize this principle, we used VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman 2010 ), Footnote 2 a widely adopted bibliometric software that constructs a network map in which documents (nodes) are grouped into clusters on the basis of the density of shared references (coupling strength). Strongly coupled documents are positioned near one another, and the resulting clusters capture coherent thematic areas grounded in similar intellectual foundations. Clustering relies on the smart local moving algorithm, which is widely validated in bibliometric research. Following best practices for emerging and moderately sized research fields (Zupic and Čater 2015 ) and in line with recent methodological guidelines for bibliometric research and management reviews (Marzi et al. 2025 ; Öztürk et al. 2024 ), no minimum citation threshold was applied. This decision allowed for all 222 documents in the dataset to be retained, ensuring that the resulting clusters reflected the full breadth of contemporary research activity in the field. Following this procedure, our analysis yielded four distinct clusters.

The thematic clusters identified through bibliometrics provided the foundation for an in-depth qualitative review. Each cluster was examined through a detailed assessment of the titles, abstracts, keywords, and, when necessary, the full texts of the most representative or highly cited documents. This process enabled us to validate the thematic coherence of each cluster and ensure that the grouping reflected meaningful intellectual distinctions rather than technical artifacts. On the basis of this evaluation, we assigned descriptive labels that capture the core theme of each cluster. We then conducted a focused qualitative synthesis within each cluster to identify underlying theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, key findings, and areas of convergence or divergence across studies. Together, these analyses deepened our understanding of the field’s intellectual structure (RQ3) and enabled the identification of emerging trends and future research opportunities (RQ4). The complete methodological process is summarized in Fig. 1 .

4 Performance analysis results

The performance analysis goes beyond a descriptive overview of publication trends and citation patterns and serves as an analytical tool to interpret the intellectual evolution, consolidation, and diversification of research on SC in FFs. In line with recent methodological discussions that highlight the interpretive value of literature reviews for theory development (Kraus et al. 2022 , 2024 ), this analysis allows us to identify foundational contributions, dominant assumptions, and critical inflection points in the field.

4.1 Evolution of scientific production (RQ1)

Research on SC in FFs has evolved from sporadic contributions in the early 2000s to a consolidated and expanding research stream. As shown in Fig. 2 , publication activity accelerated after 2008 and displayed notable peaks in 2015 and 2022. These turning points align with broader developments in FF scholarship and social sciences.

First, the surge in publications after 2020 coincides with heightened scholarly interest in resilience, embeddedness, and relational resources in the aftermath of COVID-19—topics conceptually aligned with SC and frequently examined in FF contexts. Second, the consolidation of specialized journals and research centers dedicated to FF studies has expanded the visibility and legitimacy of the field, facilitating the diffusion of SC-related research. Third, the maturation of theoretical frameworks such as familiness and socioemotional wealth (SEW) has provided a robust conceptual foundation that encouraged more sophisticated inquiries into the role of SC in FFs. Finally, the growing use of mixed-method approaches has supported the methodological diversification of the field, contributing to the increased publication activity observed in recent years.

Taken together, these developments explain the surge in research output after 2020 and the sharper growth observed after 2022, reflecting both external factors and the internal evolution of the FF research community. Beyond volume effects, this temporal evolution signals a gradual broadening of the field’s analytical scope and a growing openness to more nuanced and multifaceted perspectives on SC. These patterns are indicative of a maturing research stream and provide an important backdrop for the thematic structures and intellectual configurations examined in the subsequent analysis.

4.2 Key contributors to the evolution of the research field (RQ2)

Influential articles. Table 2 lists the ten most cited articles in the field. Although citation counts alone do not fully capture scholarly impact, they indicate the intellectual influence of foundational contributions. The prevalence of AJG 4* and 4-rated journals among these articles underscores the integration of SC–FF research into mainstream management and entrepreneurship scholarship.

Beyond citation counts, these works introduced conceptual building blocks that shaped subsequent inquiry. For instance, Carney ( 2005 ) articulated governance-based sources of advantage in FFs, Arregle et al. ( 2007 ) advanced the distinction and interplay between family- and firm-level SC, and Pearson et al. ( 2008 ) developed a familiness-based SC framework that remains central to contemporary theorization. These foundational contributions not only defined the field’s early boundaries but also established the intellectual structure of the field.

Together, these influential articles performed distinct intellectual functions within the field, with early conceptual works providing the foundational lenses for theorizing SC in FFs and subsequent highly cited contributions extending and refining these core perspectives.

Influential journals. Table 3 identifies the most active and cited journals publishing research on SC in FFs. These outlets represent a combination of FF, entrepreneurship, and management journals (e.g., Family Business Review , Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice , Journal of Family Business Strategy ). This distribution reveals the interdisciplinary character of the field and shows how SC research draws on strategic management, organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, and sociological perspectives.

Nevertheless, the dominance of management and entrepreneurship outlets suggests that explicitly sociological and psychological approaches remain comparatively underrepresented. For instance, despite the centrality of trust, norms, identity, and affective ties to SC, relatively few contributions draw on core sociological theories (e.g., network embeddedness, bonding vs. bridging SC) or psychological constructs (e.g., family identity, emotional climate). This imbalance points to opportunities for future theoretical expansion through deeper integration of sociological and psychological perspectives, which could further enrich theorization on the relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital.

Leading authors. Table 4 shows the most prolific and influential authors in the field. Sanchez-Famoso, Iturralde, and Maseda stand out for advancing empirical research on internal SC and its relationship with firm performance, innovation, and governance. In contrast, authors such as Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, Very, and Carney have had the greatest citation impact, reflecting the foundational role of their conceptualizations of SC and the family–firm interface. Their contributions laid the groundwork for subsequent theoretical developments that incorporate multilevel, dynamic, and relational perspectives.

Taken together, these patterns highlight the differentiated intellectual roles within the field: prolific authors have expanded the empirical knowledge across diverse contexts, whereas highly cited authors have shaped the core conceptual architecture of research on SC in FFs.

Overall, the performance analysis revealed a research field that has experienced steady expansion and increasing diversification. Foundational contributions continue to anchor scholarly discourse, confirming their enduring relevance in linking governance, SC, and firm performance. Moreover, more recent studies have increasingly examined innovation, learning processes, sustainability, and family-level SC, illustrating the growing complexity and multidimensional nature of FF research.

Importantly, these historical and structural patterns also help explain the thematic clusters identified in Sect. 5 . The convergence of established theoretical pillars and emerging research directions provided a coherent backdrop for the intellectual structure uncovered in the bibliometric coupling analysis. Thus, the performance analysis not only documents the evolution of the field but also provides an interpretive foundation for understanding the thematic structures revealed through the bibliographic coupling analysis in the following section.

5.1 Bibliographic coupling mapping

Bibliographic coupling analysis was employed to determine the thematic structure of the 222 articles included in this review. This technique links publications on the basis of similarities in their reference lists, thereby capturing shared knowledge bases and research orientations. Accordingly, bibliographic coupling is particularly suitable for mapping the current intellectual configuration of a field and identifying cohesive thematic streams and emerging research directions, especially in evolving domains such as SC research in FFs (Öztürk et al. 2024 ). The resulting network delineates four well-defined research streams, which collectively represent the current intellectual structure of SC research on FFs and are visualized in Fig. 3 .

In this network map, nodes represent individual articles, with node size indicating citation impact within the dataset. Spatial proximity reflects coupling strength, such that publications positioned closer together share a larger proportion of references. The four color-coded clusters capture distinct but interrelated thematic areas within the literature.

The green cluster, representing research on social and business networks, is the densest and most cohesive, signaling strong shared-reference patterns among studies examining relational embeddedness, interorganizational ties, and external linkages. The red cluster, centered on governance and succession, occupies a separate but adjacent region, indicating conceptual proximity but theoretical distinctiveness from the network stream. The yellow cluster, focused on SC, knowledge, and innovation, is positioned between external networks (green) and family-level relational resources (blue), reflecting its bridging role across the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC. Finally, the blue cluster, devoted to family-level SC, is spatially compact, highlighting consistent theoretical underpinnings and a shared body of references rooted in microlevel relational dynamics.

Within each cluster, more central nodes serve as intellectual anchors, showing strong coupling ties with surrounding publications. Peripheral nodes represent emerging contributions or niche subtopics. Overall, the spatial distribution reveals a field that is thematically differentiated yet intellectually interconnected, with several conceptual bridges across clusters.

Table 5 provides an integrated overview of the four clusters, including their key contributions, dominant theories, and methodological tendencies. Among the 222 articles, 120 (54%) employed quantitative methods, 57 (26%) employed qualitative methods, and only 7 (3%) employed mixed methods. Conceptual works accounted for 38 publications (17%), highlighting the empirically oriented nature of SC research on FFs.

The theoretical anchors differ markedly across clusters. The green cluster draws on SC theory, network embeddedness, and resource-based perspectives to examine how external relational structures shape firm behavior. The red cluster integrates SEW, agency theory, stewardship theory, and SC to explore governance, control, and intergenerational transitions. The yellow cluster relies on resource-based, contingency, and attention-based perspectives to analyze how SC enables knowledge flows and innovation. The blue cluster draws on family-level SC, identity, and grounded theory approaches, emphasizing microfoundational processes within the family domain.

Methodologically, quantitative designs dominate the green, red, and yellow clusters, reflecting their focus on structural relationships, organizational processes, and performance outcomes. In contrast, the blue cluster is characterized by qualitative approaches that capture the nuanced sociorelational fabric of family life. This methodological imbalance suggests opportunities for cross-pollination—for instance, enhancing family-SC research with quantitative models or examining governance and innovation through qualitative or process-oriented approaches.

Cross-cluster links and gaps are particularly salient. The intermediate position of the yellow cluster reveals its role in connecting external relational networks (green) with internal family dynamics (blue), which is consistent with the idea that innovative outcomes rely on both external exposure and internal cohesion. Overlaps between the green and red clusters indicate potential but underdeveloped intersections, for example, how external networks shape governance decisions or succession processes. Moreover, gaps remain: few studies link family-level SC (blue) with innovation mechanisms (yellow), despite strong theoretical complementarities. Similarly, network-based insights are only partially incorporated into governance-oriented research (red), even though relational ties can influence succession legitimacy and stakeholder alignment.

Together, these patterns illuminate a field that is simultaneously expanding, diversifying, and seeking deeper theoretical integration. In this sense, the bibliographic coupling analysis provides a structured basis for the integrative discussion and research agenda developed in Sect. 6 , in line with recent methodological work on theory-building literature reviews in management research (Kraus et al. 2022 , 2024 ).

5.2 Major themes and topics related to social capital in family firm research (RQ3)

This section shifts from science mapping to conceptual interpretation, using the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC as an analytical lens to examine how the literature on FFs conceptualizes and operationalizes SC and to identify the key linkages, tensions, and research gaps.

5.2.1 Cluster 1. Social and business networks—structural emphasis and network dynamics

Cluster 1 reflects a dominant structural logic through which SC has been theorized in FF research. This stream conceptualizes it primarily as the configuration of network ties connecting FFs to family members, business partners, communities, and institutional actors. Drawing on SC theory, social network perspectives, and resource-based views, this stream assumes that network structures themselves constitute a primary source of value creation.

The underlying premise across these studies is that specific network properties—such as density, diversity, and bridging capacity—shape access to information, resources, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Seminal contributions established this structural orientation by linking family and organizational SC to governance arrangements and family involvement (Arregle et al. 2007 ), framing SC as a dimension of familiness and competitive advantage (Pearson et al. 2008 ), and extending family capital into interrelated human, social, and financial dimensions (Danes et al. 2009 ).

The empirical research within this cluster consistently demonstrates that structurally embedded SC facilitates new venture creation, resource mobilization, and entrepreneurial orientation, particularly through ties that enable external knowledge flows (Rodriguez et al. 2009 ; Werbel and Danes 2010 ; Zahra 2010 ). Studies on immigrant entrepreneurship further illustrate how network-based SC sustains resource mobilization and business survival (Bizri 2017 ; Janjuha-Jivraj 2003 ; Katila and Wahlbeck 2012 ; Khayesi et al. 2014 ). Similarly, internationalization research shows that FFs leverage network connections to reduce uncertainty and accelerate foreign expansion (D’Angelo et al. 2016 ), whereas historically grounded analyses highlight how trust-based networks facilitate continuity across generations (Colli et al. 2013 ). Evidence from China and other emerging markets further underscores the role of SC and family ties in technological upgrading, venture creation, and firm performance, particularly in contexts characterized by institutional voids and resource constraints (Frerich et al. 2023 ; Ma et al. 2018 ; Qin and Deng 2016 ; Shi et al. 2015 ).

Moreover, this cluster reveals a central tension inherent to a predominantly structural view of SC. While dense and cohesive networks enhance stability and access to resources, they also increase the risk of overembeddedness, inertia, and reduced adaptability (Acquaah 2011 ; Colli et al. 2013 ; Mani and Lakhal 2015 ; Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2015 ; Schmid and Sender 2021 ). Importantly, relational elements such as trust, reciprocity, and cohesion are typically treated as outcomes of network structure rather than as independent explanatory mechanisms. This contrasts sharply with Clusters 2 and 4, where relational and cognitive dimensions assume a more central causal role.

Overall, Cluster 1 captures the structural foundations of SC in FFs, highlighting how network embeddedness shapes entrepreneurial activity, performance, and internationalization while simultaneously constraining strategic renewal. Its proximity to Cluster 2 suggests that network-based SC both influences and is influenced by intrafamily dynamics, pointing to promising opportunities for integrative research that bridges structural and relational perspectives.

5.2.2 Cluster 2. Governance and succession—interplay between structural and relational social capital

Cluster 2 reflects a relational–structural logic through which SC has been theorized in research on FF governance and succession. Rather than examining formal governance mechanisms or family relationships in isolation, this stream emphasizes their interplay, conceptualizing SC simultaneously as a resource and a constraint for intergenerational continuity. Grounded primarily in SEW, stewardship, and SC theories, the stream assumes that effective governance depends on the alignment between formal structures—such as boards, ownership arrangements, and succession planning—and informal relational dynamics, including trust, cohesion, and emotional commitment. This stream thus advances a view of governance in which outcomes hinge on the coherence between formal arrangements and relational foundations rather than on the isolated effectiveness of individual mechanisms.

By articulating key governance and succession mechanisms in FFs, seminal contributions establish the foundations of this stream. Carney ( 2005 ) conceptualized governance-based value creation as contingent on ownership concentration and relational governance; Salvato and Melin ( 2008 ) framed succession as a trust- and identity-mediated process; and Miller et al. ( 2013 ) examined governance archetypes and their performance implications. Collectively, these studies highlight how SC underpins stewardship behavior and mitigates agency costs while simultaneously generating risks such as nepotism, entrenchment, and resistance to professionalization (Berent-Braun and Uhlaner 2012 ; Pittino et al. 2016 ).

The empirical research within this cluster demonstrates that relational trust and shared norms facilitate succession planning, governance stability, and long-term orientation (Jain and Jamali 2016 ; Jones et al. 2008 ). Moreover, excessive reliance on family ties may hinder merit-based decision-making and limit openness to external expertise (Kellermanns and Eddleston 2004 ). Bonding ties, while supporting cohesion and continuity, can also reduce adaptability under conditions of environmental turbulence (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ; Kellermanns et al. 2012 ). Trust thus operates dually as a governance mechanism—reducing monitoring and coordination costs—and as a relational mechanism that fosters cooperation, corporate social responsibility, and stewardship behavior (Eddleston et al. 2010 ; Stanley and McDowell 2014 ). In smaller FFs, trust frequently substitutes for formal monitoring, reinforcing the relational SC within governance processes (Ciravegna et al. 2020 ; Niehm et al. 2008 ).

Overall, Cluster 2 shows that governance and succession outcomes in FFs are not determined by the presence of specific governance mechanisms per se but by how formal structures and relational dynamics are configured and sustained over time. Its proximity to Clusters 1 and 4 underscores that governance-related SC is shaped not only by intrafamily relations and cognitive alignment but also by broader patterns of network embeddedness. Viewed through this lens, SC emerges not only as an input to governance but also as a dynamic condition through which FFs continuously negotiate the balance between continuity and change across generations.

5.2.3 Cluster 3. Innovation and knowledge management—structural and relational outputs

Cluster 3 reflects a recombinative logic through which SC has been theorized in research on innovation, learning, and knowledge management in FFs. Rather than conceiving SC as a static resource, this stream frames it as a dynamic mechanism that enables the recombination of internal and external knowledge, supporting strategic renewal while preserving continuity. Drawing on SC theory, the resource-based view, contingency perspectives, and attention-based approaches, the cluster advances the premise that innovation outcomes depend on how structural openness and relational cohesion are jointly mobilized.

A defining feature of this stream is the integration of the structural and relational dimensions of SC. Structural SC—such as network breadth, bridging ties, and connections beyond the family—provides access to diverse knowledge sources and external partners (Chirico and Salvato 2016 ; Zahra 2020 ). Seminal contributions show how family and nonfamily ties foster knowledge sharing, technological adoption, and innovation processes (Sorenson et al. 2009 ; Chang et al. 2009 ). In parallel, relational SC enhances trust, commitment, and cooperation, thereby facilitating learning processes and incremental innovation (Agyapong et al. 2017 ; Casprini et al. 2017 ). The empirical evidence suggests that innovation outcomes are strongest when internal, family-based SC and external, nonfamily SC are combined, enabling firms to balance stability with openness (Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2014 ).

This cluster also highlights a central tension inherent to the recombinative logic of SC. While dense internal ties and shared routines reduce uncertainty and foster intergenerational knowledge transfer (Bendig et al. 2020 ; Chen et al. 2022 ; Pucci et al. 2020 ; Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2017 ), they may also constrain exploration by limiting exposure to novel ideas and external perspectives (Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2017 ). This tension is often articulated as a tradition–innovation paradox, in which strong family identity and trust support cohesion but hinder boundary spanning and experimentation (Wong and Lee 2023 ). Innovation in FFs therefore hinges on the ability to selectively relax established routines and leverage bridging ties without undermining relational foundations.

Overall, Cluster 3 positions SC as a dynamic enabler of renewal, highlighting how innovation in FFs emerges from the interplay between structural opportunities and relational capacities. Its proximity to Cluster 1 underscores the relevance of network-based openness, while its connection to Cluster 4 points to the importance of cognitive and relational foundations in sustaining learning over time. Together, these interdependencies suggest that SC shapes not only whether FFs innovate but also how they balance continuity and change in the pursuit of long-term renewal.

5.2.4 Cluster 4. Family social capital—relational and cognitive foundations

Cluster 4 reflects a cognitive–relational logic through which family SC has been theorized in FF research. Rather than emphasizing network structures or governance arrangements, this stream conceptualizes SC as a deeply embedded resource rooted in shared meanings, emotional bonds, and the quality of intrafamily relationships. Dominated by qualitative research, particularly multiple-case studies, this cluster focuses on the microfoundations of SC, highlighting how collective sensemaking, identity, and affective ties shape FF behavior in ways that cannot be fully captured by structural indicators alone.

A central premise of this stream is that bonding SC constitutes the distinctive core of FFs. Shared values, collective identity, and family narratives foster trust, cooperation, and communication, thereby sustaining cohesion and long-term orientation (Carr et al. 2011 ; Uhlaner et al. 2015 ). Cognitive elements—such as shared vision, purpose, and cultural alignment—guide decision-making, conflict resolution, and investment horizons, whereas relational SC—emotional support, interpersonal quality, and cohesion—reinforces affective commitment and organizational resilience (Discua-Cruz et al. 2013 ; Mzid et al. 2019 ; Wang 2016 ). In resource-constrained contexts, strong relational SC can compensate for limited material assets, particularly in small or early-stage FFs (Meneses et al. 2014 ; Mitter et al. 2022 ).

Moreover, this cluster highlights a key tension inherent to the cognitive–relational logic of SC. Dense family ties and strong identity alignment may stabilize behavior and reinforce continuity, but they can also reduce objectivity, intensify conflict, and foster resistance to change (Rosecká and Machek 2023 ). This ambivalence underscores that relational and cognitive SC simultaneously enable resilience and constrain adaptability.

A defining contribution of this stream is its integration of family SC with familiness and succession processes. Cognitive continuity—expressed through shared narratives, values, and stewardship beliefs—shapes successor identification, motivation, and legitimacy (Bizri 2016 ; Iturrioz-Landart et al. 2023 ). Relational SC facilitates tacit knowledge transfer, socioemotional support, and boundary spanning, particularly when aligned with stewardship orientations and community logics (Azizi et al. 2022 ).

Importantly, this cluster also demonstrates that internal family SC conditions the firm’s capacity to cultivate and sustain external relationships. Family cohesion and cognitive alignment enhance reputation, partnership building, and external knowledge flows, linking internal relational resources with broader network dynamics (Discua-Cruz et al. 2013 ; Herrero and Hughes 2019 ; Mihotić et al. 2023 ). Trust emerges as the relational backbone connecting family SC with coordination, market orientation, and decision clarity (Cabrera et al., 2015 ; Martín-Santana et al. 2020 ), whereas cognitive elements—such as ethical norms, sustainability mindsets, and faith-based commitments—reinforce identity continuity and long-term stability (Sorenson and Milbrandt 2023 ).

Overall, Cluster 4 positions relational and cognitive SC as deeply embedded foundations that differentiate FFs from other organizational forms. By shaping behavioral norms, strategic preferences, and adaptive capacity, these microfoundations generate both synergies and tensions with structural forms of SC. In doing so, this cluster completes the conceptual architecture of the field by explaining how socially constructed meanings and emotional ties sustain FFs across generations.

6.1 Bridging perspectives: social capital in family firms

A central contribution of this paper lies in its integrated interpretation of SC in FFs through the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC. While prior research has often examined these dimensions in isolation, the evidence synthesized in this review shows that SC in FFs emerges from their interaction. Structural configurations—such as network ties and governance arrangements—provide the channels through which relational elements (trust, cohesion, reciprocity) and cognitive components (shared values, collective identity, sense-making) influence family and organizational outcomes.

The evidence across the reviewed studies demonstrates that structural SC enables access to resources, entrepreneurial behavior, and external embeddedness (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Bizri 2017 ; D’Angelo et al. 2016 ). However, its effectiveness depends critically on relational trust and cognitive alignment, which sustain collaboration and opportunity recognition (Pearson et al. 2008 ). Governance mechanisms operate effectively only when reinforced by relational SC and cognitive SC that reduce conflict, foster shared expectations, and support succession processes (Kellermanns and Eddleston 2004 ; Salvato and Melin 2008 ; Pittino et al. 2016 ). Similarly, innovation outcomes depend not only on the breadth and diversity of network ties but also on the joint mobilization of structural openness, relational trust, and cognitive flexibility, which together enable knowledge assimilation and recombination (Chirico and Salvato 2016 ; Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2014 ; Pucci et al. 2020 ). At the family level, shared identities, narratives, and value systems shape decision-making, stewardship behaviors, conflict resolution, and long-term orientation (Uhlaner et al. 2015 ; Discua-Cruz et al. 2013 ; Herrero and Hughes 2019 ).

Taken together, these insights point to an intellectual reorientation of the field. The early research tended to conceptualize SC as a relatively static stock of ties embedded in formal structures and governance arrangements (Carney 2005 ; Berent-Braun and Uhlaner 2012 ). More recent studies increasingly emphasize its dynamic, relational, and cognitive qualities, particularly in relation to innovation, socioemotional goals, and intergenerational exchanges (Mzid et al. 2019 ; Sorenson and Milbrandt 2023 ). This shift reflects a growing recognition that SC evolves over time and across contexts, shaping—and being shaped by—FF behavior and strategic choices (Schmid and Sender 2021 ).

This study also reveals the ambivalent nature—and previously underexplored dark sides—of SC in FFs (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ). While bonding social capital fosters trust, cohesion, and resilience, excessively dense relational ties may generate groupthink, suppress dissent, or limit exposure to diverse knowledge, thereby constraining adaptability and innovation (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 ; Sanchez-Famoso et al. 2017 ). In governance and succession contexts, loyalty-driven decisions may distort meritocratic processes or intensify relational conflicts (Kellermanns and Eddleston 2004 ). The evidence from smaller and resource-constrained FFs further suggests that rigid identity frames and unresolved relational tensions can erode the benefits of SC or amplify vulnerabilities (Mitter et al. 2022 ; Rosecká and Machek 2023 ). Taken together, these insights underscore the importance of balancing bonding and bridging ties and aligning structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC.

From a theoretical development perspective, the review reveals that while SC theory, the resource-based view, stewardship theory, and SEW offer valuable insights, they remain insufficiently integrated. Combining SC perspectives with dynamic capability theory appears particularly promising, as trust and cognitive alignment may enhance a firm’s ability to sense, seize, and reconfigure opportunities (Chirico and Nordqvist 2010 ; Teece 2007 ). Moreover, SC may constrain dynamic capabilities when cognitive frames become rigid or relational obligations hinder resource reallocation (Andersén, 2015 ). Addressing these tensions represents an important avenue for future research.

Finally, the review underscores the importance of interdisciplinary approaches. The relational and cognitive dimensions of SC cannot be fully understood without insights from psychology (e.g., trust building, identity formation), sociology (e.g., norms and power relations), and family science (e.g., family system dynamics) (Dyer et al. 2023 ; Jaskiewicz and Dyer 2017 ). Such perspectives are especially relevant for examining microlevel processes that remain underexplored, including the roles of spouses, daughters, and couples in shaping SC dynamics (Payne et al. 2011 ; Penney et al. 2019 ; Shrestha et al. 2023 ; Maseda et al. 2023 ). Moreover, SC formation and activation vary across cultural and institutional contexts, as evidence from emerging economies highlights the centrality of kinship, community, and religious networks (Sorenson and Milbrandt 2023 ). Comparative research is therefore needed to clarify how contextual factors shape SC processes and outcomes in FFs.

Overall, integrating evidence across clusters, SC dimensions, and theoretical perspectives provides a coherent framework for understanding how SC operates in FFs. This integrative perspective not only clarifies the dynamic and ambivalent nature of SC but also lays the foundation for the structured research agenda developed in the following section.

6.2 Future research directions (RQ4)

Building on the integrative insights of this review, we identify several promising avenues for advancing research on SC in FFs. To provide a clear roadmap, we organized the agenda into short-, medium-, and long-term priorities, reflecting increasing levels of conceptual integration, methodological sophistication, and contextual sensitivity. Table 6 summarizes the themes, research directions, and illustrative questions.

The short-term priorities focus on deepening the analysis of the dynamic interplay among the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of SC. The literature—particularly that included in Clusters 1 and 2—privileges structural SC, yet our findings show that relational and cognitive dimensions often act as the mechanisms through which structural ties exert influence. Understanding how these dimensions reinforce, complement, or counteract one another is essential for overcoming current fragmentation. Comparative case studies, multirespondent surveys, and dyadic family–firm designs offer promising approaches for capturing fine-grained social dynamics.

The medium-term priorities include developing integrative models that link SC with dynamic capabilities to explain how FFs sense, seize, and reconfigure resources under changing environmental conditions. Future studies should conceptualize SC as a constitutive mechanism shaping the microfoundations of these capability processes rather than as a static organizational attribute (Teece 2007 ). Research should also examine how SC interacts with SEW objectives while accounting for family heterogeneity, including intergenerational dynamics and the roles of underrepresented members. In line with recent calls for more integrative and context-sensitive frameworks to understand how SEW is articulated across different institutional and cultural settings (Smajić et al. 2025 ), future research would benefit from incorporating evidence from countries with diverse social and cultural contexts. Such comparative approaches can help clarify how contextual conditions shape the configuration, salience, and interpretation of SC and SEW within FFs. Methodologically, this stage calls for longitudinal mixed methods, multilevel models, and family-genogram–based approaches capable of capturing the evolution of SC within and across generations.

The long-term priorities involve mapping how cultural norms, institutional environments, and FF typologies shape SC configurations. Comparative studies across emerging economies, collectivist societies, and family-intensive contexts can reveal how kinship-based versus community-based SC influence firm behavior and performance. These questions require cross-cultural multisite studies, harmonized measurement instruments, and configurational analyses to examine how combinations of SC dimensions and contextual factors generate heterogeneous outcomes.

By prioritizing research questions across temporal horizons, this agenda offers a structured roadmap for advancing the field. It invites scholars to address foundational conceptual gaps in the short term, develop integrative frameworks in the medium term, and pursue ambitious comparative and context-sensitive studies in the long term. Together, these efforts will deepen the understanding of how SC operates within FFs and how its benefits—and potential drawbacks—manifest across diverse family, organizational, and institutional contexts.

6.3 Practical implications

From a managerial perspective, this review underscores the need for FF leaders to adopt a deliberate and strategic approach to managing SC across its structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions. Many FFs rely heavily on bonding SC—dense internal ties, shared identity, and strong emotional commitments—which supports cohesion but risks insularity, rigidity, and resistance to innovation. To counterbalance these risks, leaders should cultivate bridging SC through engagement with external partners, industry associations, universities, or entrepreneurial ecosystems.

The implications vary across different types of FFs and life cycle stages. Innovation-oriented or growth-focused FFs should prioritize external collaborations, relational openness and cognitive flexibility to support knowledge integration. Multigenerational FFs should focus on relational and cognitive alignment—trust, shared goals, and transparent communication—to complement formal governance structures. Boards and family councils should adopt trust-building routines, shared decision frameworks, and structured intergenerational dialogs to translate governance mechanisms into effective coordination. Leaders should periodically reassess family narratives, identity frames, and role boundaries to prevent “lock-in” effects associated with excessive bonding SC. Tools such as family constitutions, cross-generational mentorship, and advisory boards can balance tradition with renewal. Policymakers can also foster SC development by designing programs tailored to FF heterogeneity, including mentoring schemes for next-generation leaders, inclusive governance training, and incentives for external partnerships that strengthen both internal cohesion and external linkages.

6.4 Theoretical contributions

This review advances theory by making three interrelated yet clearly differentiated contributions to the literature on SC in FFs. Each contribution extends prior work in a distinct way, and taken together, they enable a more integrated, dynamic, and contingent understanding of how SC operates within FFs.

First, the review provides a novel integrative perspective by showing that SC in FFs emerges from the interaction of its structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions across nested levels of social organization, notably the family and the business system. While prior reviews have acknowledged the multidimensional nature of SC, they have largely examined these dimensions in isolation or at a single level of analysis. In contrast, this review explicitly shows how SC spans individuals, family and nonfamily groups, the family firm, and its external networks. This integration clarifies cross-level mechanisms through which SC is built and enacted in FFs, such as micro-to-meso emergence (e.g., individual trust and shared cognition developing into family-level cohesion), meso-to-micro moderation (e.g., governance structures conditioning relational dynamics), and macro-to-meso and micro mediation (e.g., external networks influencing innovation and succession through internal relational openness and cognitive alignment). By articulating these mechanisms, the review establishes a foundation for multilevel theorizing and positions SC as a central micro–macro linking mechanism in FF research (Payne et al. 2011 ). This contribution advances the field by explaining why SC cannot be understood without considering the nested social systems in which FFs operate.

Second, the review advances theory by clarifying the field’s shift from static to dynamic conceptualizations of SC in FFs, thereby repositioning SC as a processual and evolving resource rather than a fixed stock of ties. This shift is theoretically significant because it aligns SC with a dynamic capability perspective, in which adaptability stems from the evolution of routines, learning processes, and relational patterns over time (Teece 2007 ). In FFs, SC is particularly dynamic and coevolving with family involvement, intergenerational interactions, governance changes, and broader institutional contexts. By foregrounding the SC as an evolving phenomenon, the review redirects scholarly attention from static outcomes to underlying processes—how SC is built, maintained, transformed, and sometimes eroded. This processual lens opens avenues for research designs capable of capturing temporal dynamics, path dependencies, and critical transition periods such as succession, strategic renewal, or crisis, which are especially salient in FFs.

Third, the review contributes by specifying how SC interfaces with dynamic capabilities and SEW in FFs, highlighting both enabling and constraining effects as well as key boundary conditions. It shows that SC constitutes a central mechanism through which FFs sense opportunities and threats, address them, and reconfigure resources and routines under SEW considerations. Structural SC enhances access to diverse information, whereas relational trust and cognitive openness facilitate opportunity recognition; however, dense kinship networks may restrict exposure to novel knowledge and reinforce cognitive lock-in (Arregle et al. 2007 ; Pearson et al. 2008 ). In the seizing phase, relational cohesion and shared cognition can enable coordinated action and collective commitment, yet groupthink and strong SEW preservation motives may bias decision-making toward tradition-preserving choices (Herrero and Hughes 2019 ; Reiners and Kammerlander 2024 ). In the reconfiguration stage, governance structures and shared identity may support the orchestration of resource redeployment, whereas overembeddedness and core rigidities can impede transformation (Carr et al. 2011 ). Importantly, the review identifies family-specific boundary conditions, including heterogeneity in family goals, governance structures, the presence of nonfamily executives, the salience of different SEW dimensions, and industry dynamism and institutional environments, that shape whether SC enables or constrains capability development. By explaining why similar SC configurations may lead to divergent strategic outcomes depending on their alignment with family values, governance arrangements, and environmental demands, the review highlights the contingent and path-dependent nature of dynamic capability development in FFs.

Finally, by integrating evidence on ambidextrous tensions—such as the tradition–innovation paradox—and the “dark sides" of SC, including overembeddedness, groupthink, and relational conflict, this review offers a nuanced theoretical lens that recognizes SC as both a strategic asset and a potential source of vulnerability (Anand et al. 2025 ). This dual perspective reinforces the need for future research to develop explicitly multilevel, dynamic, and contingency-based models of SC tailored to the distinctive characteristics of FFs.

6.5 Limitations

Although this review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the literature on SC in FFs, several limitations highlight opportunities for future research. First, the reliance on the WoS database and the restriction to AJG-listed journals enhanced the rigor, transparency, and comparability of the analysis but may exclude relevant contributions published in emerging, specialized, or context-specific outlets, as well as insights from gray literature or practitioner-oriented sources. Future reviews could complement AJG-based filtering with broader inclusion criteria or sensitivity analyses to assess whether the exclusion of non-AJG journals affects the thematic patterns or intellectual structures.

Second, while a bibliometric analysis provides a robust and replicable method for identifying dominant themes and intellectual structures, it relies on predefined keywords and shared references, which may limit its ability to capture emerging or peripheral topics not yet strongly connected through citation networks. Third, the qualitative synthesis conducted in this review enriches interpretation and theoretical integration but cannot fully capture fine-grained microlevel processes such as trust-building, identity formation, or emotional dynamics within FFs.

Finally, although bibliometric clustering is useful for mapping the structure of the field, it cannot fully account for the complex interactions among SC dimensions, family heterogeneity, and contextual factors such as industry dynamics or institutional environments. To address these limitations, future research would benefit from longitudinal, multilevel, cross-cultural, and mixed-method designs to deepen the understanding of how SC is built, transformed, and leveraged across diverse FF settings and over time.

Notes

The Academic Journal Guide (available at https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide ) is provided by the Chartered Association of Business Schools.

VOSviewer software is available at https://www.vosviewer.com

References

Acquaah M (2011) Utilization and value of social networking relationships in family and nonfamily firms in an African transition economy. Eur Manage J 29(5):347–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.03.002

Article Google Scholar

Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev 27(1):17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367

Article Google Scholar

Agyapong FO, Agyapong A, Poku K (2017) Nexus between social capital and performance of micro and small firms in an emerging economy: the mediating role of innovation. Cogent Bus Manag 4(1):1309784. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331197520171300000

Article Google Scholar

Anand A, Wieszt A, Vajda É (2025) Decoding the dark sides of family business: a synthesis, and future research agenda. Rev Manag Sci 19:3563–3606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00860-7

Article Google Scholar

Andersén J (2015) The absorptive capacity of family firms: how familiness affects potential and realized absorptive capacity. J Fam Bus Manag 5(1):73–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2014-0012

Article Google Scholar

Aragón-Amonarriz C, Arredondo AM, Iturrioz-Landart C (2019) How can responsible family ownership be sustained across generations? A family social capital approach. J Bus Ethics 159(2):161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3728-7

Article Google Scholar

Arregle JL, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG, Very P (2007) The development of organizational social capital: attributes of family firms. J Manage Stud 44(1):73–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x

Article Google Scholar

Azizi M, Bidgoli MS, Maley JF, Dabić M (2022) A stewardship perspective in family firms: a new perspective for altruism and social capital. J Bus Res 144:764–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.030

Article Google Scholar

Bendig D, Foege JN, Endriß S, Brettel M (2020) The effect of family involvement on innovation outcomes: the moderating role of board social capital. J Prod Innov Manag 37(3):249–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12522

Article Google Scholar

Belussi F, Orsi L, Savarese M (2019) Mapping business model research: a document bibliometric analysis. Scand J Manag 35:101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.101048

Article Google Scholar

Bengoa A, Maseda A, Iturralde T, Aparicio G (2021) A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature. J Technol Transf 46(5):1514–1550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09774-5

Article Google Scholar

Berent-Braun MM, Uhlaner LM (2012) Family governance practices and team building: paradox of the enterprising family. Small Bus Econ 38:103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9269-4

Article Google Scholar

Bizri RM (2016) Succession in the family business: drivers and pathways. Int J Entrepreneur Behav Res 22(1):133–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2015-0020

Article Google Scholar

Bizri RM (2017) Refugee-entrepreneurship: a social capital perspective. Entrep Reg Dev 29(9–10):847–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/898562620171364000

Article Google Scholar

Cabrera-Suárez MK, Déniz-Déniz MC, Martín-Santana JD (2015) Family social capital, trust within the TMT, and the establishment of corporate goals related to nonfamily stakeholders. Fam Bus Rev 28(2):145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486514526754

Article Google Scholar

Carney M (2005) Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family–controlled firms. Entrep Theory Pract 29(3):249–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x

Article Google Scholar

Carr JC, Cole MS, Ring JK, Blettner DP (2011) A measure of variations in internal social capital among family firms. Entrep Theory Pract 35(6):1207–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00499.x

Article Google Scholar

Casprini E, De Massis A, Di Minin A, Frattini F, Piccaluga A (2017) How family firms execute open innovation strategies: the Loccioni case. J Knowl Manag 21(6):1459–1485. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0515

Article Google Scholar

Chang EPC, Memili E, Chrisman JJ, Kellermanns FW, Chua JH (2009) Family social capital, venture preparedness, and start-up decisions: a study of Hispanic entrepreneurs in New England. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):279–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486509332327

Article Google Scholar

Chen X, Pan X, Sinha P (2022) What to green: family involvement and different types of eco‐innovation. Bus Strat Environ 31(5):2588–2602. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3045

Article Google Scholar

Chirico F, Nordqvist M (2010) Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: the role of organizational culture. Int Small Bus J 28(5):487–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610370402

Article Google Scholar

Chirico F, Salvato C (2016) Knowledge internalization and product development in family firms: when relational and affective factors matter. Entrep Theory Pract 40(1):201–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12114

Article Google Scholar

Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Pearson AW, Barnett T (2012) Family involvement, family influence, and family–centered non–economic goals in small firms. Entrep Theory Pract 36(2):267–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.x

Article Google Scholar

Chua JH, Chrisman JJ, Sharma P (1999) Defining the family business by behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 23(4):19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300402

Article Google Scholar

Ciravegna L, Kano L, Rattalino F, Verbeke A (2020) Corporate diplomacy and family firm longevity. Entrep Theory Pract 44(1):109–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719838470

Article Google Scholar

Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120

Article Google Scholar

Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Colli A, García-Canal E, Guillén MF (2013) Family character and international entrepreneurship: a historical comparison of Italian and Spanish ‘new multinationals.’ Bus Hist 55(1):119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2012.687536

Article Google Scholar

Cordoba I, Iturralde T, Maseda A (2024) Family firms unveiled: navigating their distinctive investment and financing decisions. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 30(2):100247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2024.100247

Article Google Scholar

D’Angelo A, Majocchi A, Buck T (2016) External managers, family ownership and the scope of SME internationalization. J World Bus 51(4):534–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.01.004

Article Google Scholar

Danes SM, Stafford K, Haynes G, Amarapurkar SS (2009) Family capital of family firms: bridging human, social, and financial capital. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486509333424

Article Google Scholar

Daspit JJ, Chrisman JJ, Ashton T, Evangelopoulos N (2021) Family firm heterogeneity: a definition, common themes, scholarly progress, and directions forward. Fam Bus Rev 34(3):296–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211008350

Article Google Scholar

Discua-Cruz A, Howorth C, Hamilton E (2013) Intrafamily entrepreneurship: the formation and membership of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrep Theory Pract 37(1):17–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00534.x

Article Google Scholar

Dyer WG, Panicheva Mortensen S (2005) Entrepreneurship and family business in a hostile environment: the case of Lithuania. Fam Bus Rev 18(3):247–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00045.x

Article Google Scholar

Dyer WG, Kofford S, Willoughby BJ (2023) Cohabiting couples: a neglected family form that is important for the field of family business. Eur J Fam Bus 13(2):137–148. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfb.13.2.2023.16908

Article Google Scholar

Eddleston KA, Chrisman JJ, Steier LP, Chua JH (2010) Governance and trust in family firms: an introduction. Entrep Theory Pract 34(6):1043–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00412.x

Article Google Scholar

Frerich S, Calabrò A, Torchia M (2023) Commitment helps: the positive effects of long-term orientation and family ownership expansion. Entrep Res J. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0005

Article Google Scholar

Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol Theory. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051

Article Google Scholar

Gulati R (1998) Alliances and networks. Strateg Manag J 19(4):293–317

Article Google Scholar

Herrero I, Hughes M (2019) When family social capital is too much of a good thing. J Fam Bus Strat 10(3):100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.01.001

Article Google Scholar

Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manage Rev 30(1):146–165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445

Article Google Scholar

Iturrioz-Landart C, Aragón-Amonarriz C, Cabrera-Suárez MK (2023) Family social capital as a driver to leverage challenged transgenerational entrepreneurship. J Fam Bus Manag 13(3):762–779. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2022-0015

Article Google Scholar

Jain T, Jamali D (2016) Looking inside the black box: the effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corp Gov Int Rev 24(3):253–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12154

Article Google Scholar

Janjuha-Jivraj S (2003) The sustainability of social capital within ethnic networks. J Bus Ethics 47:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026288811107

Article Google Scholar

Jaskiewicz P, Dyer WG (2017) Addressing the elephant in the room: disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Fam Bus Rev 30(2):111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517700469

Article Google Scholar

Jones CD, Makri M, Gomez–Mejia LR (2008) Affiliate directors and perceived risk bearing in publicly traded, family–controlled firms: the case of diversification. Entrep Theory Pract 32(6):1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00269.x

Article Google Scholar

Katila S, Wahlbeck Ö (2012) The role of (transnational) social capital in the start-up processes of immigrant businesses: the case of Chinese and Turkish restaurant businesses in Finland. Int Small Bus J 30(3):294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/266242610383789

Article Google Scholar

Kellermanns FW, Eddleston KA (2004) Feuding families: when conflict does a family firm good. Entrep Theory Pract 28(3):209–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00040.x

Article Google Scholar

Kellermanns FW, Eddleston KA, Zellweger TM (2012) Article commentary: extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: a look at the dark side. Entrep Theory Pract 36(6):1175–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00544.x

Article Google Scholar

Kessler MM (1963) Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am Doc 14(1):10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103

Article Google Scholar

Khayesi JN, George G, Antonakis J (2014) Kinship in entrepreneur networks: performance effects of resource assembly in Africa. Entrep Theory Pract 38(6):1323–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12127

Article Google Scholar

Kovacs A, Van Looy B, Cassiman B (2015) Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research. Scientometrics 104:951–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1628-0

Article Google Scholar

Kraus S, Breier M, Lim WM, Dabić M, Kumar S, Kanbach D, Ferreira JJ (2022) Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manag Sci 16(8):2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

Article Google Scholar

Kraus S, Bouncken RB, Yela Aránega A (2024) The burgeoning role of literature review articles in management research: an introduction and outlook. Rev Manag Sci 18(2):299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00729-1

Article Google Scholar

Lin N (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1):28–51

Ma Z, Wang L, Cheung K (2018) The paradox of social capital in China: venture capitalists and entrepreneurs’ social ties and public listed firms’ technological innovation performance. Asian J Technol Innov 26(3):306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1976159720181540000

Article Google Scholar

Mani Y, Lakhal L (2015) Exploring the family effect on firm performance: the impact of internal social capital dimensions on family firm performance. Int J Entrep Behav Res 21(6):898–917. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2014-0100

Article Google Scholar

Martín-Santana JD, Cabrera-Suárez MK, Déniz-Déniz MC (2020) Familiness, social capital and market orientation in the family firm. Eur J Mark 54(7):1731–1760. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2018-0274

Article Google Scholar

Marzi G, Balzano M, Caputo A, Pellegrini MM (2025) Guidelines for bibliometric-systematic literature reviews: 10 steps to combine analysis, synthesis and theory development. Int J Manag Rev 27:81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12381

Article Google Scholar

Maseda A, Iturralde T, Aparicio G, Cooper SY (2023) Building bridges between gender and family business literature to advance women’s empowerment. Gender Manag 38(8):1029–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2022-0056

Article Google Scholar

Meneses R, Coutinho R, Carlos Pinho J (2014) The impact of succession on family business internationalisation: the successors’ perspective. J Fam Bus Manag 4(1):24–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2013-0004

Article Google Scholar

Mihotić L, Raynard M, Sinčić Ćorić D (2023) Bouncing forward or bouncing back? How family firms enact resilience in times of crisis. J Fam Bus Manag 13(1):68–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-03-2022-0047

Article Google Scholar

Miller D, Lee J, Chang S, Le Breton-Miller I (2013) Filling the institutional void: the social behavior and performance of family versus non-family technology firms in emerging 40 markets. In: Elgar E (ed) Handbook of research on family business, 2 nd ed. Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 40–61

Mitter C, Postlmayr M, Kuttner M (2022) Risk management in small family firms: insights into a paradox. J Fam Bus Manag 12(2):237–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-06-2020-0051

Article Google Scholar

Mzid I, Khachlouf N, Soparnot R (2019) How does family capital influence the resilience of family firms? J Int Entrep 17(2):249–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0226-7

Article Google Scholar

Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(2):242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225

Article Google Scholar

Niehm LS, Swinney J, Miller NJ (2008) Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. J Small Bus Manage 46(3):331–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2008.00247.x

Article Google Scholar

Öztürk O, Kocaman R, Kanbach DK (2024) How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal. RMS 18:3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0

Article Google Scholar

Payne GT, Moore CB, Griffis SE, Autry CW (2011) Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital research. J Manage 37:491–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/10.1177/0149206310372413

Article Google Scholar

Pearson AW, Carr JC, Shaw JC (2008) Toward a theory of familiness: a social capital perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 32(6):949–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x

Article Google Scholar

Penney C, Vardaman J, Marler L, Antin-Yates V (2019) An image theory of strategic decision-making in family businesses. J Fam Bus Manag 9(4):451–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2019-0032

Article Google Scholar

Pittino D, Visintin F, Lenger T, Sternad D (2016) Are high performance work practices really necessary in family SMEs? An analysis of the impact on employee retention. J Fam Bus Strateg 7(2):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2016.04.002

Article Google Scholar

Powell WW, Smith-Doerr L (1994) Networks and economic life. In: Smelser N, Swedberg R (eds) The handbook of economic sociology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 379–402

Pucci T, Brumana M, Minola T, Zanni L (2020) Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: the role of proximity and family involvement. J Technol Transf 45(1):205–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9591-y

Article Google Scholar

Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone, revisited. The responsive community. Springer, Berlin, pp 18–33

Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: Crothers L, Lockhart C (eds) Culture and politics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Qin Z, Deng X (2016) Government and family Guanxi in Chinese private firms: perceptions and preference. Rev Manag Sci 10:35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0138-4

Article Google Scholar

Rabetino R, Kohtamäki M, Federico JS (2021) A (Re)view of the philosophical foundations of strategic management. Int J Manag Rev 23:151–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12244

Article Google Scholar

Reiners C, Kammerlander N (2024) The role of networks for radical change in family firms: a systematic literature review. Eur J Fam Bus 14(2):147–170. https://doi.org/10.24310/ejfb.14.2.2024.19430

Article Google Scholar

Rodriguez P, Tuggle CS, Hackett SM (2009) An exploratory study of how potential family and household capital impacts new venture start-up rates. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):259–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486509335342

Article Google Scholar

Rosecká N, Machek O (2023) How relational conflict harms family firm performance: the mediating role of family social capital and the moderating role of family ownership. J Fam Econ Issues 44(4):854–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-022-09877-6

Article Google Scholar

Rovelli P, Ferasso M, De Massis A, Kraus S (2022) Thirty years of research in family business journals: status quo and future directions. J Fam Bus Strateg 13(3):100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2021.100422

Article Google Scholar

Salvato C, Melin L (2008) Creating value across generations in family‐controlled businesses: the role of family social capital. Fam Bus Rev 21(3):259–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00127.x

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez-Famoso V, Maseda A, Iturralde T (2014) The role of internal social capital in organisational innovation. An empirical study of family firms. Eur Manag J 32(6):950–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.04.006

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez-Famoso V, Akhter N, Iturralde T, Chirico F, Maseda A (2015) Is non-family social capital also (or especially) important for family firm performance? Hum Relat 68(11):1713–1743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714565724

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez-Famoso V, Maseda A, Iturralde T (2017) Family involvement in top management team: impact on relationships between internal social capital and innovation. J Manag Organ 23(1):136–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.2

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez-Famoso V, Maseda A, Iturralde T, Danes SM, Aparicio G (2020) The potential of internal social capital in organizations: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. J Small Bus Manage 58(1):32–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/47277820191659600

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez‐Famoso V, Maseda A, Iturralde T, Alayo M (2023) A generational perspective of family firms’ social capital: interplay between ethical leadership and firm performance. Bus Ethics Environ Responsib 32(2):773–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12521

Article Google Scholar

Sanchez-Ruiz P, Daspit JJ, Holt DT, Rutherford MW (2019) Family social capital in the family firm: a taxonomic classification, relationships with outcomes, and directions for advancement. Fam Bus Rev 32(2):131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486519836833

Article Google Scholar

Sauer PC, Seuring S (2023) How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Rev Manag Sci 17(5):1899–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3

Article Google Scholar

Schmid A, Sender A (2021) How social capital influences performance in family firms: the moderating role of nepotism. Int J Hum Resour Manage 32(18):3973–3993. https://doi.org/10.1080/958519220191674000

Article Google Scholar

Sharma P (2008) Familiness: capital stocks and flows between family and business. Entrep Theory Pract 32(6):971–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00266.x

Article Google Scholar

Shi HX, Shepherd DM, Schmidts T (2015) Social capital in entrepreneurial family businesses: the role of trust. Int J Entrep Behav Res 21(6):814–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2015-0090

Article Google Scholar

Shrestha RK, L’Espoir Decosta JNP, Shrestha R (2023) Creating value networks through a learning society for Indigenous women tourism entrepreneurs. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 36(2):564–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2022-0317

Article Google Scholar

Smajić H, Palalić R, Butt I, Ahmed N, Ramadani V (2025) Socioemotional wealth and family firms performance: a framework and future pathways. Rev Manag Sci 19:1257–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00791-9

Article Google Scholar

Sorenson RL, Milbrandt JM (2023) Family social capital in family business: a faith based values theory. J Bus Ethics 184(3):701–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05110-4

Article Google Scholar

Sorenson RL, Goodpaster KE, Hedberg PR, Yu A (2009) The family point of view, family social capital, and firm performance: an exploratory test. Fam Bus Rev 22(3):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509332456

Article Google Scholar

Sorenson RL (2011) Social capital and family business. In Family business and social capital. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1–30.

Stanley LJ, McDowell W (2014) The role of interorganizational trust and organizational efficacy in family and nonfamily firms. J Fam Bus Strateg 5(3):264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.07.001

Article Google Scholar

Stasa M, Machek O (2022) Social capital in the family business literature: a systematic review and future research agenda. Fam Bus Rev 35(4):415–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865221125520

Article Google Scholar

Stasa M, Machek O (2023) Family firms’ innovation: the indirect effects of socioemotional wealth and the role of social capital. J High Technol Manag Res 34(1):100454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2023.100454

Article Google Scholar

Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manage J 28:1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266

Article Google Scholar

Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manage J 41(4):464–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/257085

Article Google Scholar

Uhlaner LM, Matser IA, Berent-Braun MM, Flören RH (2015) Linking bonding and bridging ownership social capital in private firms: moderating effects of ownership management overlap and family firm identity. Fam Bus Rev 28(3):260–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/894486515568974

Article Google Scholar

Van Eck N, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Article Google Scholar

Virk R, Corner AJ, Combs JG, Jaskiewicz P (2024) Social exchanges in family businesses: a review and future research agenda. Fam Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865241273435

Article Google Scholar

Vogel R, Gütel W (2013) The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. Int J Manag Rev 15(4):426–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000

Article Google Scholar

Wang Y (2016) Investigating dynamic capabilities of family businesses in China: a social capital perspective. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 23(4):1057–1080. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-12-2015-0175

Article Google Scholar

Werbel JD, Danes SM (2010) Work family conflict in new business ventures: the moderating effects of spousal commitment to the new business venture. J Small Bus Manage 3:421–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00301.x

Article Google Scholar

Wong YJ, Lee CY (2023) The effects of family involvement on proactive R&D management capability: detrimental or beneficial? R&D Manage 53(3):543–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12581

Article Google Scholar

Yates VA, Vardaman JM, Chrisman JJ (2023) Social network research in the family business literature: a review and integration. Small Bus Econ 60(4):1323–1345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00665-y

Article Google Scholar

Zahra SA (2010) Harvesting family firms’ organizational social capital: a relational perspective. J Manage Stud 47(2):345–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00894.x

Article Google Scholar

Zahra SA (2020) Technological capabilities and international expansion: the moderating role of family and non-family firms’ social capital. Asia Pac J Manage 37:391–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9607-7

Article Google Scholar

Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods 18(3):429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Article Google Scholar

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the Family Business Centre at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) and to the Regional Government of Biscay (DFB/BFA) for their institutional support. We also thank the Consolidated Research Group at the University of Vigo, Spain (Code OE7). We are grateful to Andreas Kallmünzer (Associate Editor) and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, suggestions, and guidance throughout the review process.

Funding

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This research was partially supported by the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI), Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Spain, under Project PID2024-158648OA-I00, co-funded by the European Union. Additional partial support for Ayesha Kashif was provided by the FESIDE Foundation (2024).

Contributions

All authors equally contributed to the conception and design of the study. The manuscript was jointly drafted and revised by all authors. For the revised version, all authors collaborated in addressing the reviewers’ comments and refining the manuscript. All authors approved the final revised manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.