Can protecting your innovations strengthen both your wealth and your legacy?

In the world of business, few topics combine emotional legacy, strategic foresight, and legal nuance like patents. For family firms, whose decision-making is shaped as much by tradition and emotion as by competition and growth, protecting innovation through patents is both an opportunity and a dilemma.

Unlike other companies, family firms must weigh not just financial gains, but also their socioemotional wealth (SEW)—the non-financial aspects of the business that matter most to them: identity, legacy, family control, and reputation. Patenting demands external validation, openness, and often, relinquishing some control—actions that can feel risky or even threatening to families who value privacy, independence, and generational continuity.

So, what influences a family firm’s decision to patent? How does the level of family ownership change that decision? And how does the external business environment tip the scale? This article dives into these questions, backed by data from over 4,000 Italian family-owned SMEs in the high-tech mechanical sector.

What We Studied

To explore the patenting behavior of family firms, the authors examined a sample of 4,198 Italian small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in high- and medium-tech sectors—particularly the mechanical industry, which is both innovation-intensive and export-driven.

The study relied on secondary data from the ORBIS database (Bureau Van Dijk), focusing on patent applications filed over a five-year period (2007–2011). Key variables included the degree of family ownership (as a proxy for SEW concerns), firm age and size, R&D spending, internationalization, industry competition, and a unique contextual factor: environmental munificence—the level of resource availability in the firm’s external environment.

The theoretical backbone was the Behavioral Agency Model (BAM) and its "mixed gamble" logic. This model explains how family firms weigh the trade-offs between preserving current SEW and pursuing future financial gains.

Key Insights

1. Family Ownership Influences Patenting in a U-Shaped Way

Firms with low-to-moderate family ownership often avoid patenting. At these levels, the family lacks full control, and the perceived risks to SEW—such as loss of control, exposure of tacit knowledge, and reputational damage—loom large. These firms tend to play it safe, avoiding what feels like an emotionally risky bet.

Conversely, highly family-owned firms (typically above 73% ownership) are more likely to patent. Why the change? Because with majority control, the family feels its socioemotional wealth is secure. Patenting becomes less of a threat and more of an opportunity—to grow, to professionalize, and to secure their legacy.

This U-shaped curve helps reconcile past conflicting research: patenting behavior doesn’t follow a simple linear trend, but instead depends heavily on the psychological safety that comes from ownership concentration.

2. Patents Are Both Financial Tools and Emotional Triggers

A patent can bring financial returns through exclusivity, licensing, and investor interest. But for family firms, it can also feel like a gamble with emotional capital. Filing for patents may expose trade secrets, require outsider involvement (e.g., lawyers, consultants), and demand procedural transparency. These requirements can feel at odds with the values of discretion, autonomy, and identity preservation.

At high levels of ownership, however, families can reframe patents not as threats, but as enablers of continuity—vehicles to protect what they’ve built for the next generation.

3. The Environment Alters the Game

Environmental munificence—a term used to describe how abundant resources are in a firm’s industry—moderates the U-shaped dynamic. In resource-poor environments, family firms at moderate ownership levels are even less likely to patent due to higher perceived risks. But firms with high family ownership see patents as critical tools for survival and growth, especially in competitive, cash-strapped sectors.

In resource-rich environments, these effects are less extreme. Opportunities are plentiful, competition is manageable, and family firms may delay or avoid patenting altogether to preserve traditional modes of operation.

Takeaways

1. Patenting Is a Psychological Choice, Not Just a Strategic One

Family businesses don’t patent—or avoid patenting—solely because of cost-benefit analysis. Emotional considerations, especially the desire to protect SEW, weigh heavily. Recognizing this can help family leaders better understand internal resistance or hesitation.

2. Ownership Structure Matters

Moderate ownership can put firms in a "gray zone": strong enough to influence strategy but not strong enough to feel secure. Firms in this zone are most likely to avoid patenting. Shifting toward higher ownership can reduce this tension and unlock more decisive innovation strategies.

3. In Tough Markets, Patents May Be Your Best Defense

In low-munificence environments, patenting isn’t just a growth lever—it’s a survival tool. Families with secure control should see patents as a way to future-proof their businesses and ward off competitive threats.

4. Strategic Alignment Is Possible

This study identifies a "win/win" scenario: when family ownership is high, and environmental conditions call for innovation, patents become both a financial and emotional asset. Leaders should actively seek this alignment instead of avoiding it.

Impact

This research offers a paradigm shift in how we think about innovation in family firms. Rather than labeling these businesses as risk-averse or slow to innovate, the study shows they’re deeply strategic—just in a more complex way.

By incorporating the idea of mixed gambles and SEW, the findings underscore that family firms are constantly juggling financial objectives with emotional commitments. Patenting sits at the intersection of these competing priorities.

The study also serves as a bridge between strategy and psychology in family firms, offering a more holistic understanding of why some firms protect their innovations while others hold back. It paves the way for future research into other "emotionally loaded" business decisions—from acquisitions to succession to diversification.

Recommendations

• Audit your ownership structure: If you're hovering in the mid-range of ownership (e.g., 30–70%), reflect on whether uncertainty around control is limiting your willingness to patent.
• Assess your SEW sensitivities: Use frameworks or advisors to evaluate how SEW concerns—such as control, reputation, or tradition—may be affecting strategic decisions.
• Adapt to your environment: If you're in a resource-scarce sector, consider patenting not as a luxury but as a competitive necessity. Tight markets reward those who secure their innovations.
• Communicate the dual value of patents: Internally, frame patents not just as profit tools but as legacy builders. Help family stakeholders see that protecting IP also protects their identity and long-term vision.
• Revisit this decision regularly: Ownership levels, market conditions, and family dynamics change. What felt risky five years ago might now be the path to resilience and growth.

‍