Highlights from the Baltic Family Business Conference 2025

Tor Bonnier (KA Bonnier Foundation, G6) and Erik Wetter (Center for Family Enterprise, Stockholm School of Economics)  (moderator) reflected on the 220-year legacy of the Bonnier family business, which began as a small Copenhagen bookshop in 1804 and evolved into a diversified, multinational media and investment group. Operating in 12 countries with over 300 brands, the Bonnier Group demonstrated how sustainable family ownership could thrive across nine generations. The presentation recounted the family’s journey through complex generational transitions, the development of a modern governance structure, and the strategic decisions that shaped its presence in journalism, publishing, real estate, and investments. As the seventh generation assumed leadership, the Bonnier legacy remained grounded in values such as freedom of expression, inclusivity, and long-term stewardship.

 A new addition to the conference, the debate session titled "Family Firm Status - A Competitive Branding Edge or a Limiting Factor" moderated by Fabian Bernhard (EDHEC Business School) sparked lively discussion on whether family ownership strengthens or complicates branding—an engaging format that will certainly be continued in future events. The session began with the house statement asserting that family firm status enhances trust, loyalty, and market differentiation. Two opposing teams—comprising family business leaders and advisors including Jānis Ciguzis (BDO), Natalija Kurganove (Biržu Duona), Modestas Plakys (Gausus Family Office), Kristine Ross (Infotark AS), and Rihards Treijs (Gemoss)—engaged in a dynamic exchange of arguments. They debated whether emphasizing family heritage and values truly offers a competitive edge in today’s fast-paced business environment or whether it might restrict innovation, growth, and investor interest. The session featured real-world case studies and active audience participation, offering a well-rounded exploration of the branding implications of family firm identity.

In the panel discussion titled "Next Generation," moderated by Arnis Škapars (SEB), panelists Toms Dzenis (OC Vision, G2), Johannes Gullichsen (Ahlström, G4), Kristiine Kadak (AS Saku Metall, G2), and Justinas Kanopa (Rokiškio mėsinė, G2) engaged in a dynamic conversation about the evolving role of the next generation in family businesses. The session focused on the perspectives, challenges, and aspirations of emerging leaders as they prepare to take on greater responsibilities. Panelists shared personal experiences and insights on succession, innovation, and balancing tradition with modern leadership approaches, offering a forward-looking view on how the next generation is shaping the future of family enterprises.  A recurring theme was the importance of not forcing next-gen involvement; instead, creating space for fun and inspiration can be far more effective. When children see that the business brings joy and meaning, they are more likely to engage and take interest in continuing the legacy. 

Paper 1 | Executive Talent Allocation across Family Business Group Affiliates 

Presenter: Ronald Masulis  | Discussant: Morten Bennedsen (University of Copenhagen)

The paper presented by Ronald Masulis (UNSW School of Business, University of New South Wales) investigates how family business groups manage and move top executives across their affiliated companies. Using a rich international dataset, the authors find that around 30% of executive appointments come from within the group, rather than outside hires. These internal moves often target younger or struggling companies in the group, suggesting a strategic effort to strengthen weaker links. While such reallocation can hurt short-term performance, it often aligns with increased investment and long-term growth. The discussant highlighted the paper’s novel insights into how family-controlled groups use internal talent markets and raised thought-provoking questions about the role of family influence, international differences, and benchmarking choices.

Paper 2 |  What is a Family Firm and Why Does it Matter? A Survey of Family Firm Definitions

Presenter: Morten Bennedsen  | Discussant: Fabian Bernhard (EDHEC Business School)

What exactly makes a company a “family firm”? The paper presented by Morten Bennedsen (University of Copenhagen) takes a deep dive into how scholars define family firms across different disciplines and why it matters. Reviewing over 120 academic papers, the authors uncover 27 different definitions, ranging from simple ownership thresholds to more complex criteria involving family involvement in management, control, and succession. The study shows that these varying definitions can lead to very different research results—and warns that over-relying on ownership alone oversimplifies what are often highly diverse organizations. The paper calls for clearer, more consistent definitions to support better research and real-world understanding of family business dynamics.

Paper 3 | Protecting the family legacy: How firms respond to antitrust enforcement actions 

Presenter: Mario Daniele Amore | Discussant: Marc Goergen (IE Business School)

The paper presented by Mario Daniele Amore (Bocconi University) explores how family firms respond to antitrust enforcement actions. Using a detailed dataset of Italian firms, the study finds that family firms, unlike their nonfamily counterparts, react to sanctions by increasing family executive involvement while limiting external financing and investment. This behavior is framed as a strategy to protect socio-emotional wealth and restore stakeholder trust. The research shows that this internal renewal approach can help family firms maintain competitiveness under regulatory and reputational pressure. 

Paper 4 | Listed Family Firms and Financial Distress 

Presenter: Marc Steffen Rapp| Discussant: Janis Berzins (BI Norwegian Business School)

Marc Steffen Rapp (Philipps University of Marburg) presented a paper examining how labor market regulation (LMR) influences the likelihood of financial distress in family versus non-family firms. Using a dataset of over 16,000 listed firms across 30 OECD countries, the authors find that family firms are significantly less likely to enter financial distress in highly regulated labor environments. This “stability premium,” however, comes at a cost—lower value creation and weaker growth expectations compared to non-family firms. The authors attribute this to family firms’ conservative financial strategies driven by socioemotional wealth (SEW) considerations and long-term survival motives. 

Paper 5 | Families in Venture Capital

Presenter: Valerio Pelucco| Discussant: Yajing Li (University of Manchester)

Valerio Pelucco (LUISS University) presented his paper examining a previously overlooked phenomenon: family-led venture capital (VC) funds. Defining “Family VCs” as funds with significant familial involvement in management, Pelucco argued that these VCs exhibit a stronger tendency to invest locally and to syndicate with nearby partners. This “local investment strategy” is linked to the unique social capital and local embeddedness of family-controlled entities. Using a large dataset of VC deals from 2000 to 2022, Pelucco showed that Family VCs tend to rely on geographic proximity more than non-family VCs - particularly when performance pressure is high or the likelihood of follow-on funding is low. The paper proposed that this behavior stems from both rational access to local information and potential home bias. Overall, the findings suggest that local strategies can enhance performance under specific conditions, especially when fundraising constraints are present.

Paper 6 | Eponymy, Reputation, and ESG Reporting in Private Family Firms

Presenter: Olivia Askheim| Discussant: Marco Becht (University Libre de Bruxelles)

The study presented by Olivia Askheim (Bocconi University) investigates the role of reputational concerns in driving voluntary ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) disclosure among private family firms, focusing on the concept of eponymy—when a firm bears the name of its founder or family. Using a large dataset of Italian private family firms from 2013 to 2021, the authors find that eponymous firms are significantly more likely to publish ESG reports than their non-eponymous counterparts. This tendency is amplified in firms with rare names, greater media visibility, and positive press sentiment, suggesting that ESG disclosure serves as a form of reputation insurance. While eponymous firms do not consistently report more ESG actions overall, they have shown a notable increase in both the quantity and variety of ESG actions since 2017, particularly in social and environmental domains.

Paper 7 | Careers and Wages in Family Firms: Evidence from Matched Employer-Employee Data

Presenter: Fabiano Schivardi| Discussant: Alminas Žaldokas (National University of Singapore)

Fabiano Schivardi (LUISS, EIEF, CEPR) presented a paper examining wage structures and career progression in family versus non-family firms, using rich administrative data on nearly 20 million workers in Italy. The analysis revealed that employees in family firms earn on average 16% less, are promoted less frequently, and receive smaller wage increases upon promotion. These differences persist even after controlling for productivity, industry, and worker characteristics, suggesting structural constraints in family firms’ talent development systems. The results point to a trade-off between control preservation and the ability to attract and retain high-skilled talent. 

Paper 8 | Redrawing the map of the market for corporate control: New evidence from listed and unlisted firms 

Presenter: Andrea Viola| Discussant: Yupana Wiwattanakantang (National University of Singapore)

Andrea Viola (LUISS University) presented a large-scale empirical study on corporate control changes across public and private firms in Europe, using a comprehensive dataset from Moody’s DataHub covering over 375,000 non-financial firms from 2015 to 2022. The paper defines control change as a shift in the global ultimate owner (GUO) and finds such changes occurred in 8.2% of firm-year observations. The study reveals that family- and state-owned firms exhibit a lower likelihood of control change compared to others. Most control transitions occur toward industrial owners, with targets typically being young, profitable, highly leveraged, and less financially constrained firms.