The Carvajal case is based on interviews with four family members and executives of Carvajal S.A., one of Latin America's leading family businesses. The case focuses on how, over the span of 120 years, the Carvajal family built a holistic family enterprise to govern both its business and its family ownership structure. The system includes the typical governance attributes of a large family enterprise - including a family council, shareholders' assembly and family constitution - and in addition, it puts special emphasis on entrepreneurship and social and economic welfare. Yet, with the family expanding in size and scattering geographically, the Carvajal family must continue to innovate and adapt their family enterprise model. The case explores the particular challenges related to family governance, ownership and CEO succession. It details how Carvajal established NextGen programs and fostered entrepreneurship as a "glue" to bind the family together. It also shows how Carvajal achieved collective impact by aligning the purpose of the business with the purpose of the family foundation, the family council and the wider family enterprise. From a broader perspective, the case illustrates how to manage family governance issues in a multi-generational family enterprise by understanding and applying the mechanisms that are available, and by maintaining a healthy balance between family leadership and independent governance.

Poul Due Jensen (PDJ), the son of a Danish workhouse manager, had seen first-hand how harsh life can be. He understood early on that he needed to stand on his own two feet. After being orphaned aged 17, he worked as a machine operator, but soon founded his own water technology company, Grundfos Holding A/S, in 1944. He responded to a customer's need for a high-quality water pump by designing and manufacturing something completely new. As the company grew and expanded, its competency as a technological innovator and a quality employer became apparent. These dual passions were mutually reinforcing. A broadly educated and incentivized workforce pushed the boundaries of what was possible in providing water solutions to customers worldwide. The growing realization of the impact Grundfos' product line could have solidified the company's foundational commitment to helping the world's poor. Although the business was successful, PDJ - by now 63 - needed to think about the future. Of PDJ's four children, his son Niels was technically inclined and had worked in different positions in the company. He was ready to assume more of a leadership role. After speaking with colleagues and advisors, PDJ considered whether to change the organizational form of Grundfos from a company to a commercial foundation. A company owned by a foundation has greater focus on its purpose rather than the interests of the founding family. PDJ had seen examples of firms in which the family retained a leadership role in the enterprise, albeit from a distance on the foundation board. And a minority shareholding, along with the accompanying dividends, was often held by the founder's family. The foundation model seemed to hold real promise for Grundfos' future, but with less family engagement, would the corporate culture remain durable and authentic? Would being free of potential business disagreements keep his family intact? And would Grundfos still be a "family business"?

Without much family discussion, PDJ put majority ownership of Grundfos into the Poul Due Jensen Foundation in 1975. His family would receive a 15% stake in the company. This ownership stake was important, since by Danish law, the company could be sold if family ownership fell below 10%. The 8-member foundation board would oversee the company's long-term strategy and apply its Grundfos dividends to philanthropic pursuits - water, research and social inclusion. The Due Jensen family held 4 seats; the remaining board members were chosen for their expertise. Day-to-day operations at Grundfos lay with its corporate board. PDJ died soon after this, and Niels became CEO of Grundfos. He focused on innovation, technical excellence and new product development. In 2012 Danish law changed its governance approach. The foundation board expanded to 12 members to accommodate 4 employee representatives, and the family's voting block fell from one-half to one-third. After 2nd generation Niels retired as CEO in 2003, three non-family CEOs held the role. Niels' son, Poul, was chosen as CEO in 2020. Grundfos had become the world leader in water pump technology, with a large workforce, a presence in 59 countries and significant revenues. Increasingly, the company leveraged the life-saving impact of its products, and its humanitarian efforts were widely recognized. Over time, family members seeking liquidity sold shares to the foundation, bringing the family's ownership stake in Grundfos to under 10% and raising the possibility of a sale. Individual stakes now ranged from 0.15% to 3.96%. The 4th generation of this small family had fewer interactions with Grundfos than previous generations. There were internships, special projects and participation in company events, but no pressure to work there. Grundfos has grown beyond what many may consider a family business and ownership is mainly with the foundation. But its focus on building a healthy and sustainable business is still rooted in its

This case presents the unique approach to philanthropy of the Ahlstrom family. A group of 25 fifth-generation female Ahlstrom family members founded the Eva Ahlstrom foundation in 2010, in the name of the family matriarch Eva Ahlstrom (1848-1920), who was a big contributor to society in her time. This led to the establishment of the Ahlstrom Collective Impact in 2020. The uniqueness of the Ahlstrom Collective Impact lies in the power that comes from bringing all entities together under one umbrella, and letting purpose and values be the guiding principles that unite the Ahlstrom network. The core mission is to inspire, engage and involve everyone - employees and shareholders alike - to create a better understanding of what rights children have, and why and how their realization affects our businesses, our societies and our future.

The longest corporate takeover battle in the history of Switzerland - and possibly the world - pitted Sika, a Swiss chemicals manufacturer, against Saint-Gobain, a French conglomerate. At the heart of the dispute was a family business. Sika was a very successful family-controlled firm whose fourth-generation descendants decided to sell their stake in the company. The sale created a quandary for Sika's board of directors, however. How could the board reconcile the wishes of the family owners with the interests of the other shareholders and the company itself? The case highlights the governance dilemma faced by Paul Hälg, the Chairman of Sika's board of directors, and discloses how all parties came to an agreement after a protracted legal dispute lasting 41 months.

Christoph Gebald and Jan Wurzbacher founded Zurich-based start-up Climeworks in 2009 based on technology they had developed, which they claimed would help slow the massive challenge of climate change by capturing CO2 directly from the air. Several hurdles still stood in their way, but Gebald and Wurzbacher had an entrepreneurial mindset and ambitious plans for their business and its potential impact on humanity. The pair put all their efforts into developing the robust technology, reducing costs of production and building a viable business model to directly capture and sell carbon dioxide - a market yet to be developed. Climeworks aimed to remove 1% of global CO2 emissions from the Earth's atmosphere by 2025. The vision was bold and could only be achieved through massive growth, including 250,000 installations the size of Climeworks' flagship plant in Switzerland. One main issues Climeworks needed to address was reducing the uncertainty around the desirability of the solution, meaning identifying and leveraging market demand. Once the prototype had been developed, the company needed to find markets for its end product, carbon dioxide. Which industries would be good targets? Could Climeworks create completely new markets for the solution?

Climeworks took a multipronged approach when seeking markets for its end product: emissions reversal, beverages and fuel. Climeworks emissions reversal solution involved the direct physical removal of the same amount of emissions from the atmosphere as had been created. Once captured, the CO2 could then be permanently and safely stored underground. Also, the global beverage industry had become one of the biggest consumers of CO2 in the world. Valser, recently certified as Switzerland's first climate-neutral mineral water, was the first brand to leverage Climeworks' technologies for its drinks. Finally, air-captured carbon dioxide could be combined with hydrogen and turned into a fossil fuel substitute. It was still unclear which of these markets would prove successful for Climeworks or whether government regulations would be adapted to support carbon removal. But it was clear that industry disruption was needed to reduce emissions drastically and avoid the most destructive effects of climate change. What was also sure was that entrepreneurs Gebald and Wurzbacher had no plans to slow down until they had fulfilled their bold vision of solving one of the greatest challenges through innovation.