Campbell Soup Company, one of America’s most iconic food brands, was founded in 1869 — just a few years after the end of the U.S. Civil War. For most of its 150+ years, it has been much more than a publicly traded company. It has been, in many ways, a family treasure, deeply tied to the descendants of John T. Dorrance, the man credited with inventing condensed soup.

Yet in recent years, a question has begun to loom over the company:
Will Campbell Soup remain under family influence, or is it headed toward a future without that historic connection?

The Changing Dynamics of Family-Owned Public Companies

Campbell is currently undergoing an operational review — a thorough assessment of its portfolio, operations, and strategic position in the market. The process is being described internally as having “no sacred cows,” meaning that nothing, not even the company’s long-standing identity or ownership structure, is immune from consideration.

While some in the industry speculate this could mean Campbell might even explore selling the entire company, this isn’t the first time such rumors have surfaced. Each time before, the company — supported by its powerful family shareholders — has resisted selling. Instead, it reaffirmed its independence and kept control within the family’s sphere.

But times have changed.

The Dorrance descendants are now into their fourth generation. Some have reduced their stake in Campbell; others have been far removed from the day-to-day operations for decades. The shared sense of mission that once united the family is more diffuse, and younger generations often see their shares primarily as financial assets, not as guardianship of a heritage.

Why This Matters Beyond Campbell

The Campbell story is emblematic of a broader trend among legacy family-controlled public companies. Many such companies are grappling with:

• Generational turnover — later generations are often more diversified in their careers and investments, less tied to the original business.
• Market pressures — the food industry is rapidly changing, with evolving consumer tastes, health trends, and competition from fresh, organic, and ready-to-eat alternatives.
• Investor demands — public shareholders, including activist investors, push for changes to increase short-term returns, which can conflict with a family’s long-term vision.

Similar Case Studies

To better understand Campbell’s position, it’s useful to look at similar situations faced by other family-controlled companies.

Company	Founded	Family Involvement Today	Strategic Crossroads	Outcome / Current Direction
Campbell Soup	1869	Fourth-generation Dorrance descendants are largest shareholders	Operational review, declining soup sales, changing market tastes	Future uncertain — possible divestitures or sale
Ford Motor Company	1903	Ford family controls ~40% voting power via special shares	Faced declining market share and EV disruption	Chose to remain family-controlled, invested heavily in EV technology
The New York Times Co.	1851	Ochs-Sulzberger family maintains control through dual-class shares	Pressure from digital disruption of print media	Stayed independent, invested in digital subscriptions — now profitable
Hershey Company	1894	Controlled by Milton Hershey School Trust	Faced pressure to sell in 2002	Remained independent, refocused brand on premium chocolate and snacking
Anheuser-Busch	1852	Busch family influence faded after acquisition	Financial strain, global competition	Sold to InBev in 2008, ending family control
Estee Lauder Companies	1946	Lauder family retains significant influence	Adapting to e-commerce and beauty trends	Continued growth via acquisitions and digital focus

---

Patterns Emerging from the Examples

Across these cases, we see three main strategies family-controlled public companies often choose when facing a crossroads:

1. Reinforce Family Control
   • Double down on ownership and management roles.
   • Example: Ford Motor Company ensured the Ford family still had special voting rights while shifting strategy toward electric vehicles.
2. Transform and Modernize
   • Bring in outside executives while keeping family influence on strategic decisions.
   • Example: The New York Times embraced digital transformation without giving up its family-controlled structure.
3. Sell or Merge
   • Opt for acquisition or merger to maximize shareholder value when maintaining control is no longer practical.
   • Example: Anheuser-Busch sale to InBev.

Why Campbell Might Lean in Either Direction

Reasons to Keep It in the Family:

• Brand heritage: Campbell’s red-and-white label is as American as Coca-Cola.
• Control of legacy: Family can ensure the company remains aligned with its original values.
• Long-term vision: Families often think beyond quarterly earnings.

Reasons to Consider a Sale or Major Strategic Shift:

• Declining core category: Canned soup sales have been stagnant or falling in the U.S.
• Generational distance: Fourth-generation heirs may not feel the same emotional connection.
• Market disruption: Health-conscious and fresh-food brands are reshaping consumer preferences.

Applications for Business Strategy

The lessons from Campbell and similar cases have practical applications for entrepreneurs, investors, and family business owners.

Scenario	Strategic Application	Example
Founders planning succession	Build governance structures early to maintain unity	Ford’s special voting shares preserve family control
Declining legacy product sales	Diversify into high-growth categories	Hershey’s expansion into healthier snacking
Investor pressure for change	Communicate long-term vision clearly to shareholders	The New York Times’ subscription model success
Generational disengagement	Create roles that allow next-gen members to contribute meaningfully	Estee Lauder’s younger family members leading digital strategy

---

Looking Ahead

Campbell Soup’s decision will signal more than just the fate of an iconic soup maker — it will highlight the evolving nature of family capitalism in America. Whether it chooses to hold onto its family heritage, modernize under family control, or transition to entirely new ownership, the decision will be closely watched by investors, family business scholars, and other heritage brands facing similar crossroads.

As markets evolve and consumer habits shift faster than ever, the question for Campbell and other legacy companies is no longer “Will change happen?” but rather “Who will be steering when it does?”.