Contrary to the common notion that family businesses are owned and controlled by the family, a series of heterogeneity studies have recently identified new types of family businesses in Japan - "owned but not managed", and "not owned but managed". Furthermore, a series of longitudinal studies empirically confirmed that these new types are the result of changes in family businesses over time.

This paper examines these new findings from an evolutionary economics perspective and presents a new theory of family business evolution. It also analyses changes in stakeholder relations over time in the context of a family business and finds their evolution, and reveals that these two evolutionary processes are simultaneous and mutually complementary. Finally, the evolutionary stages of a family business and stakeholder relationships are compared between Japan and the West. The research question of this paper is: "What is the nature of the changes in stakeholder relationships?" The rest of the paper consists of a literature review, discussion, and implications before reaching conclusions. The implications address the current issues and the future directions of the tourism industry.

The paper aims to contribute to the theoretical advancement of a family business (definition, heterogeneity, ownership, and evolution), stakeholder, and tourism (stakeholder tourism) in the following four ways. First, it defines and recognizes family business more extensively than the extant literature, reveals the existence of a traditionally ignored type of family business (managed without family ownership), and presents a new understanding of family ownership. Second, it presents a new theory of family business evolution, both at the micro level (ie. individual family businesses) and at the macro level of a family business (at the country level and in the long timeframe). Third, we present a new theory of the evolution of stakeholder relations in the family business context. Fourth, it addresses new perspectives on tourism as value creation rather than mere consumption and the revitalization of local communities from the perspective of stakeholder relations.

Around the turn of the 21st century, three important calls were made to advance family business research, and we responded by conducting a series of empirical and theoretical studies on Japanese family businesses, which led to the findings and contributions to advance family business research. These are relevant to the present paper as described underneath.

The first is the family business definition. The extant literature could not agree on a specific definition other than at the abstract level of "firms under the influence of family management and ownership [1]." One of the main reasons for this confusion is that family ownership is considered essential for a family business, and ownership is included in the definition of a family business. Therefore, each researcher has presented an arbitrary level of ownership such as legal control, 60% the majority 15% (Poza 2004: 6), 5% among many others [2-6].

Call for a non-dichotomous definition of a family business was instrumental to solve such a situation, even though their F-PEC was not mobilized [7]. We responded to the call by replacing "management and ownership” with "management or ownership" to remove ownership from the family business definition, which resulted in achieving three leaps forward as follows: The first is the successful introduction of a non- dichotomous definition which can be mobilized as explained later [1][8]. The second is the improvement of the definitional confusion, by removing ownership to loosen the family business definition. The third is, as the result of the above two, the expansion of the scope of family businesses over extant literature, which directly led to the advancement of the heterogeneity studies as follows.

The second is the heterogeneity study. While family business research in the last century focused on comparing family and non-family businesses, call for heterogeneity studies, addressing that family business is not homogeneous and differences among family businesses are as big as differences between a family business and other types of the business [9]. Introducing a non-dichotomous definition of a family business as described above, we have succeeded in presenting a typology of three categories of family businesses, which are further subdivided into six. The three categories are: (1) family-owned and managed, (2) family-owned but not managed, and (3) family-owned but not owned. The last is a new type that extant literature has neglected.

To be exact, already remark on these three types conceptually but had yet to confirm them empirically [9]. We confirm them empirically, categorize quantitatively all family businesses listed in Japan into the six sub-categories conducted a series of in-depth case studies, and theorized [10-17].

Third is the introduction of a longitudinal study, which call for to advance the succession study which typically requires observation over generations [18]. Fully understanding the important implications of the question itself, we responded to the call by conducting a series of empirical research on the changes in family businesses over a long period of around 100 years, based on the new definition and the results of the typology as described above. The first study traced the longitudinal changes of the 114 family businesses listed as of 1922 until 2015 and the second study examined three major automobile manufacturers (Toyota, Suzuki, and Mazda)’ changes since 1909 and the third study on the Japanese Crucible since 1885, both in-depth case studies [14][12][15].

Examination of the above findings from the perspective of evolutionary economics yields the evolution theory of a family business and stakeholder relationships in the context of a family business. Evolutionary economics is a relatively new economic methodology, though the term "evolutionary economics" was coined [19]. Inspired by evolutionary biology, it is formulated with the aid of biological ideas, and interdependence among economic agents is one of its major characteristics [20]. Evolutionary economics distinguishes "evolution" from "progress" in the social scientific sense by defining it as a stable existence over a long period of time, a posteriori objective rational system that does not assume a priori rationality, historical path dependence, and change with generation and diversity in three stages: mutation/selection/retention [21-22].

Evolution of Family Business: Evolution of a family business is observed at micro and macro levels. First, at the micro level, the evolution of individual family businesses is a process starting at Stage 1 (owned and managed by the family), moving to Stage 2 (owned but not managed), and Stage 3 (not owned but managed), following a path-dependent process of decline of family capital (human, financial, and social) and erosion of the family’s influence over its business. Although there was no prior rationality in the stakeholder relationship in Stage 3, it shows a stable existence over a long period of time as a post-post-purpose rational system.

We reckon the erosion of family influence positively as evolution because of the following two reasons: First, it reduces the family’s dependence on its influence as a power, which brings about side effects, especially in the case of excessive ownership such as reduced profitability, intra-family altruism, nepotism, neglect of minority shareholders, etc [6][23][24]. Second, it enhances the stakeholder relationship with stakeholders compensating for the relative decline in family capital as we see in the next subsection.

There are some pieces of literature addressing the same issue, none of which however view it from the evolutionary perspective. For example, remark on the erosion of family’s influence starting from the family holding the majority of shares toward the disappearance of the family's influence on ownership and management, but they do not recognize this process as an evolution, defining it as a lack of family influence [25]. Present a family-driven family business (ownership dilution/family management), similar to our not-owned but managed type, as a result of family business evolution, but they view the lack of ownership differently [26]. There are address family business evolution, none of them view the lack of ownership positively as evolution [27-29].

Second, the macro-level evolution of a country's family business as a whole is evident in the history of the last four centuries in Japan. Until the end of the middle Ages, the Japanese economy was mostly agricultural, but in the modern Edo period (1603-1867), merchants emerged with both the ownership and management concentrated in the family (Stage 1). Early 17th century, some of them grew the business to the level of employing non-family employees and managers and starting systemic management. The first precept was prepared by Shimai Soshitsu (1539-1615) in 1615 (Stage 2).  Mitsui family, with one of the largest and most complex business structures, centrally managed the capital of the main families in 1710, separated capital and management, and included non-family executives in management, selecting the most capable among them to own their own stores and treat them as bekke (a remote family), which is a part of the Mitsui family [30]. A family unit was established around the head family, with branch families and remote families arranged in concentric circles, to ensure the longevity and perpetuity of the Mitsui family (Stage 3). Here, as at the micro level, stakeholders compensate for the relative decline in family capital due to the increase in size, and stakeholder relationships in the family are expanding and strengthening.

Evolution of Stakeholder Relationships

The term “stakeholder”, to describe any group or individual who can influence or is influenced by the achievement of the organization's objectives [31]. While stakeholder theory was originally positioned as a management strategy to address how companies could respond to and survive in a rapidly complex environment, its application expanded widely to the Business & Society field (such as business ethics and corporate social responsibility theory), resulting in conflicts and criticism on its concept and theory as ambiguous [32].

Prior to the emergence of this theory, the external factors influencing corporate management were only vaguely understood under the name of the environment or society. However, under the rapid changes in the environment including various social movements (consumer movement, the environmental movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, etc.) since the 1970s, the theory identified them for the first time in concrete terms under the term "stakeholders, significantly contributing to provide managers and researchers with a viewpoint from which they can consider changes outside the company.

Four years after publishing "Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach," Freeman published "Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics", putting corporate ethics at the core of management strategy theory, changing the original shift from "shareholder-oriented to stakeholder-oriented" to "economic-first to ethical-first approach [33]." This change has brought many tensions between the stakeholder theory and mainstream strategic management due to the fact that they seek to solve different problems [34].

In the “company and society" field, in parallel to its growing contributions and presence, the theory faced many claims, primarily due to the position of stakeholders as mere supporting actors. These claims include recognition of stakeholder rights and their legitimacy, corporate responsibility to stakeholders, and the definition of stakeholders as not only holding an interest but also "claiming" or "demanding" it as their own right [35,36]. In this context, a number of definitions that assume a stakeholder relationship of interaction or interdependence have emerged. Stakeholder relationships on an equal footing have become an important issue as an extension of such argument, and the evolution of stakeholder relationships, which this paper focuses on, cannot be ignored in the future development of stakeholder theory.

Integrating together with the above argument, we can observe the evolution of stakeholder relationships in the following three stages; Stage 1 before Freeman (1984): stakeholders were recognized vaguely as a part of the environment, Stage 2 starting with Freeman (1984): stakeholders were recognized only as secondary entities and Stage 3: stakeholders are recognized as major players on an equal footing [31][34].

The historical evolution of stakeholder relationships in Japan was already narrated in the last sub-section from Stages 1 to 3 in the context of a family business, which can be supplemented now with another case of Omi merchants, who started errand business in the Middle Ages from Omi Clan, not far from the old capital, Kyoto, whose business philosophy is called Sanpo-Yoshi, literally meaning three-way benefits, or the simultaneous satisfaction of the seller, buyer, and local community where they do business. This idea of stakeholders’ satisfaction was originally documented in 1754 by Nakamura Jihei Sogan, one of the wealthy Omi merchants, as his will to his grandson to instruct the attitude and behavioral cautions as an Omi merchant who trades in remote Clans and should always value and serve the local community in which he does business. The instruction emphasizes a humble attitude to always put customer satisfaction first, care for the people in the community where they do business, not seek short-term high profits, and have a strong religious faith to maintain such a humble attitude [37].

In Japan, there are many other family precepts and constitutions advocating similar ideas such as “Sengi Kori,” meaning that morality should come first and profit later, which urges merchants to take care of the stakeholders and the community even sacrificing their own short-term profit, emphasizing such a long-term orientation would eventually flourish. “Sekizen no Ie ni Yokei Ari” is another saying, which means happiness will visit the family that has done good deeds because a virtuous family enjoys long prosperity and one's good deeds shall be repaid even to one's descendants.

The important point to emphasize here is that the evolution of both family business and stakeholder relationships is concurrent and complementary. As the above-mentioned Japanese case shows, as family businesses have evolved – a decrease in family capital and dependence on it -, stakeholders have compensated for the decrease in family capital, and family businesses have maintained their existence by relying on their stakeholders.

This process is the evolution of stakeholder relationships, and such an enhancement of stakeholder relationships has intensified the trustworthy relationship between family businesses and stakeholders, resulting in family businesses integrating stakeholders into their own management, thereby making their management systems more complex and sophisticated. The change of the stakeholder relationship toward stakeholders on an equal footing (Stage 3) is also an important evolution toward multi-stakeholder relationship in which stakeholders can address complex problems and challenges in cooperation with other stakeholders [38].

At the same time that the evolution of family businesses has led to a shift away from dependence on family capital as a source of power, the concurrent evolution of stakeholder relations has also led to the internalization of stakeholders in family business management and the upgrading of management systems to enable the long-term survival of the companies.

Comparison of the evolution of family businesses in Japan and the West: The evolutions of family businesses and stakeholder relationships in Japan have gone through Stage 3 in the last couple of centuries as described above. Evolutions in the West need further study since there is no report made about family businesses in the West arriving at Stage 3. It may be simply because researchers haven’t confirmed it.

However, the following facts confirm that stakeholder relationships in the West are at Stage 2. Family business researchers were rather indifferent until remarked on its importance almost three decades later, to which gave a high remark [31][39-40]. Such a slow response can be attributed in large part to the introversion of the family business, which focused on the family's ownership to control its business and internal conflicts, showing little interest in stakeholders outside the family.  The family business field began to be attentive to its stakeholders around 2010, when researchers started paying attention to its influence on achievements continuity and family harmony awareness, and environmental issues among others [41-44].

Implications

Among many academic and practical implications in relation to a family business, stakeholders, and tourism, this section focuses on tourism. After a brief summary of the current situation and the issues in the tourism industry, the implications of this paper are addressed from the stakeholder relationship evolution.

Tourism is defined as “the processes, activities, and outcomes arising from the relationships and the interactions among tourists, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and surrounding environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of tourists” [45]. The travel and tourism industry's share of global GDP remained between 9% and 11% from 2000 to 2019, and the global scale of "leisure travel" grew steadily each year from US$1.9 trillion in 2000 to approximately US$4.7 trillion by 2019. Generally speaking, travel for leisure purposes is a growing industry before COVID-19. Tourism is a composite of activities, services, and industries that deliver a travel experience: transportation, accommodations, eating and drinking establishments, shops, entertainment, activity facilities, and other hospitality services available for individuals or groups that are traveling away from home, meaning involvement of numerous stakeholders of different nature, size, and nationalities, complicating the structure of the subject industry.

The tourism industry faces long-term strategic issues such as sustainable tourism and over-tourism. Following the report “Our Common Future” (WCED, 1987), the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) defined sustainable tourism as “meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future” in 1998 and published many recommendations and manuals on how to deal with sustainability in tourism.  The United Nations General Assembly declared 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development recalling the potential of tourism to advance the universal 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005). UNESCO emphasized the responsibilities of tourism stakeholders for sustainable development through appropriate tourism management. Among the main stakeholders that play a role in tourism development such as “tourists, companies that provide tourism products and services, the host community or local government, and the host community, or residents", tourists are of particular importance, positioned at the end of the tourism value chain as the consumers, who are typically viewed as damaging a sustainable condition [46].

Under such situations, this paper gives the following four major implications from the stakeholder relationship perspective. First, the stakeholder relationship on an equal footing implies a new paradigm for the tourism industry because stakeholder relationships are not hierarchical, but horizontal with equal rights and responsibilities, to cooperate with others. Tourists, among all, are no more merely passive consumers, seeking short-term and ephemeral consumption, but active and responsible players in value creation with long-term perspectives for sustainable development. The new relationships enable them to actively participate in value creation, such as experiencing the production process, participating regularly, interacting with the residents in the community, and adding value as stakeholders with diversity.

Second, our logic indicates the tourism industry, as a service industry, can be a value-creating industry, which is consistent with the extant literature about the service industry. Advocate Service-Dominant logic (S-D logic), meaning that service value is created by the company and the customer together, and the company alone cannot create value [47]. The customer is the actor that creates value together with the company. This logic is in line with the consumers’ increasing trend to place more importance on the experience and experience gained by acquiring a product/service than on the product/service itself. The importance of the implications of this paper for the tourism industry is that the shift to value-creative tourism will help the industry to break out of its ephemeral consumption paradigm and transform itself into a sustainable tourism industry, creating added value in the local communities where the tourism industry takes place, thereby revitalizing the community.

Third, the conversion of the tourism industry to a value-creative one brings about new satisfaction to tourists. This is not just an abstract theory, but the following realities are actually observed in Japan: In the sake brewing industry, tourists participate in rice planting in the spring, rice harvesting in the fall, and a part of the brewing process in the winter. After such a series of participation, they can enjoy drinking their own sake in the New Year, and tourists can experience the joy of being part of the production process, as opposed to mere momentary consumption, and through continuous interaction, learn new knowledge about sake brewing, including its history and technology. With the rare opportunity of tasting the products they have made, they can gain new types of satisfaction that they could not have obtained before. A similar example can be found in traditional art crafts, where the initial experience of making a craft not only deepens the relationship with the maker and, in the case of ceramics, the tourist's familiarity with the kiln through repeated visits and learning about its history, thus creating new added value.

Fourth, this shift to a new paradigm of value-creative tourism implies the possibility of resolving another structural problem residing in the industry: low profitability and productivity, high employee turnover, and other management issues. As already mentioned, the tourism industry has a very large number of small actors, each operating in isolation, but the establishment of new relationships among them will enable them to interact horizontally, share new ideas, and promote seamless service delivery, which will not only improve the customer satisfaction but also make the operators’ business more efficient than before. The new paradigm of the tourism industry also means the establishment of a sustainable tourism industry, which enables each operator to create a unique value instead of cut-throat competition resulting in increased profitability and productivity in the long perspective.

There are many examples in Japan where this future direction of tourism has already been put into practice over a long period of time. A typical example is Kinosaki Onsen, a hot spring resort in western Japan with a long history dating back to the 8th century. The main industry of this small rural community has been hot spring ryokan (Japanese-style hotel) and related tourist businesses, which have been led by seven long-standing ryokans, the oldest of which was founded in 717AD. Through the long history of trials and errors over a millennium, they learnt that the advantages of cooperative strategies over competing and the community industry has developed by working together to create value and satisfy customers. The family head of these long-lived ryokans have not only shared knowledge and satisfied customers over generations, but have also led the region's prosperity, not only in their own capacities, but also in their official capacities as village or town mayors of the community at one time or another, with a strong determination for the long-term development of the community. Even during crises such as the major earthquake of 1925 and the recent COVID-19, they worked together despite their competing positions, prioritized united cooperation and realized community development through a common platform that brought together related industries under the common philosophy of "coexistence and co-prosperity. This is truly a pioneering example of sustainable tourism, and a model realized through the cooperation of local stakeholders [13].

Series of research of the current author confirm similar examples in Nozawa Onsen and Obuse Town in Nagano Prefecture, all of which have one thing in common: first, the stakeholders leading the local tourism industry have maintained a long-term perspective in their operations and enhanced communal cooperation. Second, local government entities have provided support from the side. In this context, customers have come to appreciate the value-creating services and products offered by operators, and have come to understand their management philosophies.

Summing up this section, it is not easy to achieve a value-creative tourism, for which certain conditions are necessary so that each major stakeholders innovate themselves to fit to the new paradigm, which are summarized as follows: First, tourism operators must not pursue short-term profits but must place the highest importance on the realization of long-term goals in their business. This is not easy to achieve, as indicated by the above-mentioned case of Kinosaki, since stakeholders are often in competing situation, which makes easier for them to seek for short-term profit making than pursuing long-term prosperity of the community. Series of empirical study of the current author indicates the key for success in such situations is the existence of the leader in the community who is committed for the community’s future, which is often the case with long-lived family businesses which took initiative in the community over generations [48-49].

Second, local government’s leading role is another important factor to make it happen as suggested because the tourism industry is very fragmented, sustainability relates to areas of public concern, and the government has many of the tools that can be used to make the difference [50]. Other roles expected for the government to play include; provision of infrastructure, financial support, educating the populace/advertise and provisions of directional signs.

Last but not least, when it comes to tourists, who play the most important role in achieving sustainable tourism among the stakeholders, we can divide them into five groups in line with the theory of market penetration of new concepts, habits, and innovative new products and services proposed by Everett M. Rogers as; Innovators (2.5% of the total market), Early adopters (13.5%. also called opinion leaders), Early majority (34.0%), Late Majority (34.0%. Also called followers), and Laggards (16.0%). The figures appended are those given by Roger (1962) and do not necessarily apply exactly to the diffusion of our new tourism industry, but the overall trend can be considered in this way, and a long-term plan for diffusion is needed, with corresponding strategies defined by the suppliers and the government [51-58].

This paper, with the research question "What is the essence of the changes in stakeholder relationships?", integrates the results of a series of empirical studies conducted in Japan since the beginning of the 21st century from the perspective of evolutionary economics to theoretically clarify the evolution of family businesses and stakeholder relationships, and furthermore, to discuss the academic implications of the evolution of stakeholder relationships. As an academic implication, the paper suggests current issues and future directions in the tourism industry.

As an alternative to such a paper structure, there is an approach to empirically analyse the tourism industry in Japan, and in fact, the author tried to write the paper that way. It turned out, however, that the purpose of the paper could not be fully understood without a detailed explanation of stakeholder relationships, which is a key concept in the end, and this paper structure was finally chosen. While stakeholder relationships based on an equal footing can be alternatively approached, the author chose to approach it from the family businesses perspective, partly because as a specialist in this field, but also because this may give a good opportunity to gain an understanding of the evolution of family business theory in Japan since the majority of stakeholders in the tourism industry are family businesses.

Future work will require more detailed analysis and theoretical development of family business evolution theory, stakeholder relationships, and value-added tourism industry theory, as well as a detailed description of the process and

Underlying factors in the evolution of family business and stakeholder relationships based on equal footing in Japan (Goto, forthcoming). A comparative analysis of these factors in Japan and the West is another important topic.

The academic contributions include: contribution to family business theory - defining family business more broadly than previous studies and including the previously overlooked "family-owned but managed" type of family business. Contribution to the stakeholder theory - Introduction of the evolution of stakeholder relationships, and contribution to the tourism industry and stakeholder tourism -The contribution to tourism and stakeholder tourism - pointing out the possibilities to link tourism to value creation and regional revitalization from the perspective of stakeholder relationships.

1. Gersick KE, Davis JA, Hampton MM, Lansberg I. Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Harvard Business Review Press. 1997.
2. Lansberg I, Perrow EL, Rogolsky S. Family business as an emerging field. Family Business Review. 1988; 1: 1-8.
3. Donckels R, Frohlich E. Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS. Family business review. 1991; 4: 149-160.
4. Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I. Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business Press. 2005.
5. Smyrnios K, Odgers J. An exploration of owner and organizational characteristics, and relational marketing and opportunity search variables associated with fast-growth family versus nonfamily firms. In Proceedings of the Family Business Network 13thAnnual World Conference, Helsinki, Finland. Lausanne, Switzerland: FBN. 2002; 239-256.
6. Anderson RC, Reeb DM. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance. 2003; 58:1301-1328.
7. Astrachan JH, Klein SB, Smyrnios KX. The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal for solving the family business definition problem. Family business review. 2002; 15: 45-58.
8. Goto T. Famiribijinesu ? shira rezaru jitsuryoku to kanosei. [Family Business: Unknown Power and Possibilities]. Tokyo: Hakuto shobo. 2012.
9. Chua JH, Chrisman JJ, Sharma P. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 1999; 23: 19-39.
10. Goto T. Shinzoku-nai shokei to shinzoku-gai shokei: Shoyu-ken shokei o chushin ni [Inheritance and non-relative succession: Focusing on ownership succession]. Jigyo shokei. 2015; 4: 50 - 63.
11. FBC (Famiribijinesu hakusho kikaku henshu iinkai)-hen “Famiribijinesu hakusho 2015-nenban; 100-nen keiei o mezashite [Family Business White Paper 2015 Edition;Toward 100-year Management]. Doyu-kan. 2016.
12. FBC (Famiribijinesu hakusho kikaku henshu iinkai)-hen “Famiribijinesu hakusho 2018-nenban: 100-Nen keiei to gabanansu [Family Business White Paper 2018: 100- year Management and Governance]. Hakuto shobo. 2018.
13. FBC (famiribijinesu hakusho kikaku henshu iinkai) -hen Famiribijinesu hakusho mizou no kankyo henka to kiki toppa [Family Business White Paper Unprecedented Environmental Changes and Crisis Breakthrough]” Hakuto shobo. 2021.
14. Goto T. Jigyo shokei ni okeru sogyo-ka eikyo-ryoku no suii: Juryoku to koryoku no kosatsu [Changes in Founder's Influence in Business Succession: Consideration of Gravity and Drag]. Jigyo shokei. 2016; 5: 36 - 49.
15. Goto T. Shinzoku-nai jigyo shokei to famiri shihon: Nihonrutsubo (kabu) ni okeru Motegi-ka no yakuwari o chushin ni [Business Succession and Family Capital: Focusing on the Role of the Motegi Family in Nippon Crucible Co. Jigyo shokei. 2018; 7: 153 - 166.
16. Goto T. Longevity and disruption: Evidence from Japanese family businesses. In The Routledge Companion to Asian Family Business. New York: Routledge. 2021; 83-109.
17. Goto T. How Can a Family Control its Business Without Ownership Influence? A Case Study of Suzuki Corp. De Gruyter Handbook of Business Families, Berlin: De Gruyter. 2023; 17: 369-396.
18. Sharma P. An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family business review. 2004; 17: 1-36.
19. Veblen TB. Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Quarterly J Economics. 1898; 12: 373-97.
20. Nelson RR, Winter SG. An Evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press. 1982.
21. Fujimoto T. Seisan shisutemu no shinkaron: Toyotajidosha ni miru soshiki noryoku to sohatsu purosesu [Evolution of Production Systems: Organizational Capabilities and Creation Process in Toyota Motor]. Yuhikaku. 1997.
22. Shinka keizai gakkai Shinka keizaigaku handobukku [Evolutionary economics handbook]. Kyoritsu shuppan. 2006.
23. Mejia LRG, Cruz C, Berrone P, Castro JD. The bind that ties: Socio emotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management annals. 2011; 5: 653-707.
24. Morck R, Yeung B. Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 2003; 27: 367-382.
25. Frank H, Kebler A, Korunka C. ‘The impact of market orientation on family firm performance’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 2012; 16: 372-384.
26. Bennedsen M, Fan JPH, Jian M, Yeh YH. The family business map: Framework, selective survey, and evidence from Chinese family firm succession. J Corporate Finance. 2015; 33: 212-226.
27. Hollander BS, Elman NS. Family-owned businesses: An emerging field of inquiry. Fam Bus Rev. 1988; 1: 145-164.
28. Sharma P, Chrisman JJ, Chua JH. Strategic management of the family business: Past research and future challenges. Family business review. 1997; 10: 1-35.
29. Bhattacharya U, Ravikumar B. From cronies to professionals: The evolution of family firms. SSRN Electronic J. 2004; 1-17.
30. Yonemura C. Ie' no sonzoku senryaku: Rekishi shakai-gaku-teki kosatsu [Home Survival Strategy: A Historical Sociological Consideration]. Tokyo: Keisoshobo. 1999.
31. Freeman EE. Stakeholder Management: Framework and Philosophy in EE Freeman Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach, Pisman. 1984.
32. Jones AC, Wicks AC. Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad Manag Rev. 1999; 24: 206-221.
33. Freeman RE, Gilbert DR. Corporate strategy and the search for ethics Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1988; 1.
34. Freeman RE, Phillips R, Sisodia R. Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society. 2018; 59: 213-231.
35. Evan WM, Freeman RE. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T.L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business, 3rd ed.: 97-106. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1988.
36. Carroll AB. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co. 1989.
37. Suenaga K. Omi akindo to Mikata yoshi [Omi merchants and three sides are good]. Moraroji kenkyujo. 2014.
38. Roper J. Stakeholder engagement: Concepts, practices and complexities. In Japan Forum of Business and Society. Sustainable Development and Multi-Stakeholders. Chikura Publishing. 2012; 28-42.
39. Sharma P. Stakeholder management concepts in family firms. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society. 2001; 12: 483-493.
40. Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Litz RA. Do family firms have higher agency costs than non-family firms? Presented in the second annual Theories of Family Enterprises Conference, University of Pennsylvania. 2002.
41. Farrington S, Venter E, Boshoff C. The influence of family and non-family stakeholders on family business success. The southern African J entrepreneurship and small business management. 2010; 3: 32-60.
42. Deniz M, Suarez CM, Santana MJD. Orientation toward key non-family stakeholders and economic performance in family firms: The role of family identification with the firm. J business ethics. 2020; 163: 329-345.
43. Venter E, Merwe SVD, Farrington S. The impact of selected stakeholders on family business continuity and family harmony. Southern African Business Review. 2012; 16: 69-96.
44. Deniz MDLC, Suarez MKC, Santana JDM. Family firms and the interests of non?family stakeholders: The influence of family managers' affective commitment and family salience in terms of power. Business Ethics: A European Review. 2018; 27: 15-28.
45. Goeldner CR, Ritchie JB. Tourism principles, practices, philosophies. Eleventh edition. John Wiley & Sons. 2009.
46. Johnston RJ, Tyrrell TJ. A dynamic model of sustainable tourism. J Trav Res. 2005; 44: 124-134.
47. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J Market. 2004; 68: 1-17.
48. Yokozawa T. Shinise kigyo no kenkyu [Research on long-established companies]. Tokyo: Seisan-sei shuppan. 2000.
49. Goto T. Choju kigyo no risukumanejimento ? ikinokoru tame no dienue ? [Risk management in long-lived companies: DNA for survival]. Tokyo: Daiichihoki. 2017.
50. UNEP & UNWTO Making Tourism More Sustainable - A guide for policy makers. United Nations environment programme division of technology, industry and economics & world tourism organization. 2005.
51. Amoako GK, Darko TO, Marfo SO. Stakeholder role in tourism sustainability: The case of Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum and centre for art and culture in Ghana. Int Hosp Rev. 2022; 36: 25-44.
52. Carroll AB, Buchholtz AK. Business and society. Ethics & Stakeholder Management, Cincinatti. 1989.
53. Franks J, Mayer C, Volpin P, Wagner HF. The life cycle of family ownership: International evidence. The Review of Financial Studies. 2012; 25: 1675-1712.
54. Poza EJ. Family business. Cengage Learning. 2004.
55. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. 1962.
56. World Commission on Environment and Development Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: "Our common future. 1987.
57. World Tourism Organization. UNWTO technical manual: Collection of Tourism Expenditure Statistics. 1995.
58. Yokozawa T. Shinise kigyo no kenkyu: Zoho kaitei (Research on long-established companies: Augmented revision in Japanese). Tokyo: Seisan-sei shuppan. 2012.