A Case Study: The Samsung Succession

The evolution of the Samsung dynasty provides a worthy study on the dynamics between ownership and control. The Lee family governs a vast industrial group while holding only a small fraction of its equity. Each generational transition becomes a structural challenge: how to pass influence when inheritance tax, public markets, and regulatory scrutiny threaten to dilute family power. The decisive moment in the most recent succession came in a corporate merger that rewired the group’s control architecture.

Our latest case study examined how the Heineken family preserved control through a holding company that concentrated voting power. The Samsung dynasty chose a different solution to the same problem: control distributed across a constellation of affiliated companies.

For family office advisors, Samsung offers a rare view into succession planning in large-scale enterprises through corporate engineering.

Origin Story

In March 1938, Lee Byung-chul founded Samsung Sanghoe in Taegu with roughly 30,000 seed capital, launching a small trading operation exporting dried fish, vegetables, and noodles to Manchuria and northern China. The capital was modest but sufficient for a regional trading business. It likely came from family resources and earlier ventures Lee had experimented with during the 1930s, including rice milling and transport trading. 

Samsung’s early years followed a pattern common among East Asian industrial dynasties: start with trade, build networks, accumulate capital, and only later expand into the industries that define the group’s global identity. Trading houses allowed entrepreneurs to build distribution networks, accumulate working capital, and learn logistics and finance before moving into manufacturing or industrial production. Many later industrial groups — including Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Itochu, and Samsung — began exactly this way, even though their governance models would later diverge.

The transformation began after the Korean War. South Korea’s government launched an aggressive industrialisation programme and relied on a small number of entrepreneurial families to execute it. Lee Byung-chul proved particularly adept at aligning his business expansion with national policy priorities.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Samsung moved systematically into strategic sectors:

• sugar refining (Cheil Jedang)
• textiles (Cheil Industries)
• insurance and finance
• heavy industry and electronics.

This diversification laid the foundation for the chaebol model: large, family-controlled conglomerates spanning multiple industries while maintaining close ties with the state. Over time, Samsung became a central pillar of South Korea’s economic development.

Yet the close state ties were not the cause of the dynasty’s first major restructuring. It emerged from a scandal.

The First Succession Break

By Confucian tradition, leadership of the family enterprise would normally pass to the eldest son. In the Lee family, that role belonged to Lee Maeng-hee. The succession path changed abruptly in 1966 during the so-called Saccharin Smuggling Incident, when a Samsung affiliate was implicated in illegally importing large quantities of saccharin into South Korea. The political fallout was severe. In the aftermath, the second son, Lee Chang-hee, was imprisoned for his involvement, while the eldest lost his father’s trust after allegedly alerting authorities.

Lee Byung-chul made a culturally unusual move to bypass both sons and designate his third son, Lee Kun-hee, as the future leader of the group.

This decision established two lasting patterns within the Samsung dynasty:

First, succession would not automatically follow birth order. Strategic loyalty and capability would outweigh primogeniture.

Second, unresolved family tensions could persist for decades. The disinheritance later resurfaced in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit between siblings in 2012. 

When Lee Byung-chul died in December 1987, Samsung had already grown into one of South Korea’s largest industrial groups. The question was no longer whether the company would survive its founder, but whether it could evolve beyond the entrepreneurial model that built it.

The second generation succession placed Lee Kun-hee at the helm. By the time the transition formally occurred, Lee Kun-hee had already spent decades inside the organisation learning its internal networks of power and capital. 

An Era Of Strategic Centralisation

Lee Kun-hee inherited a sprawling group of businesses producing everything from sugar and textiles to televisions. Internationally, however, Samsung was still perceived largely as a low-cost manufacturer.

In 1993, during a gathering of senior executives in Frankfurt, Lee issued what became known as the “New Management” declaration, urging managers to “change everything except your wife and children.” The statement launched a systematic campaign to shift Samsung from volume manufacturing toward quality, innovation, and global brand credibility.

One of the most symbolic moments came when Samsung publicly destroyed 150,000 defective mobile phones, signalling a break with the group’s earlier production mentality.

Behind the cultural shift was an equally important governance mechanism. Lee Kun-hee refined a powerful internal coordinating unit known as the Future Strategy Office (FSO). Although it had no formal legal authority over Samsung’s listed companies, the office functioned as the group’s strategic control tower, overseeing executive appointments, capital allocation, and major investments across dozens of affiliates. It allowed the family to maintain strategic direction across a corporate constellation that lacked a traditional holding company.

Several major subsidiaries were spun off to siblings:

• CJ Group to the family of Lee Maeng-hee
• Shinsegae Group to sister Lee Myung-hee
• Hansol Group to sister Lee In-hee.

This restructuring had two effects. It diffused long-standing family rivalries while concentrating the most strategically valuable businesses — particularly electronics, insurance, and construction — under Lee Kun-hee’s leadership.

By the late 1990s, the centre of gravity had clearly shifted toward Samsung Electronics, especially its rapidly expanding semiconductor division.

The Asian Financial Crisis

The next governance transformation arrived through an external shock. The 1997 Asian financial crisis forced South Korea to dismantle many of the debt guarantees that chaebol groups used to support affiliated companies. Samsung was compelled to streamline its portfolio and sell non-core businesses.

The crisis reinforced Lee Kun-hee’s strategic focus. Samsung doubled down on semiconductors and advanced electronics, sectors where scale and long-term capital investment could create global leadership. By the early 2000s, Samsung Electronics had emerged as the technological core of the entire ecosystem.

Succession Under Pressure

Yet the earlier generational transition had left unresolved tensions within the family itself. The founder’s decision to bypass his eldest son in favour of Lee Kun-hee permanently altered the family hierarchy. Those tensions resurfaced decades later in high-profile litigation between siblings over ownership claims.

In 2012, Lee Maeng-hee — the founder’s eldest son who had been bypassed — filed a lawsuit against his younger brother Lee Kun-hee seeking billions of dollars in shares he claimed had been concealed during the family’s earlier restructuring. The case ultimately failed, but it exposed how unresolved succession grievances can remain dormant for decades before resurfacing in public litigation.

The transition to the third generation began abruptly in May 2014, when Lee Kun-hee suffered a severe heart attack that left him incapacitated. Leadership responsibilities shifted almost overnight to his only son, Lee Jae-yong (Jay Y. Lee).

The timing exposed a key vulnerability. Despite controlling a vast corporate network, the Lee family held little direct equity in Samsung Electronics, the group’s most valuable company.

The solution emerged through the controversial 2015 merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries. Lee Jae-yong was the largest shareholder of Cheil Industries, holding roughly 23.2% of the company. Samsung C&T, meanwhile, owned a crucial stake in Samsung Electronics. By merging the two entities, the family effectively repositioned Lee Jae-yong at the apex of the group’s ownership network without requiring the purchase of additional shares.

The transaction rewired Samsung’s governance architecture: Samsung C&T became the effective control node of the group. Samsung Life Insurance held significant voting power in Samsung Electronics. The Lee family exercised influence across the system despite owning less than 5% of Electronics directly.

Yet the strategy came at a cost. Activist investors challenged the deal, and regulators launched investigations that linked the merger to South Korea’s presidential scandal. Lee Jae-yong was arrested in February 2017. Prosecutors argued that Samsung had provided bribes to entities connected to President Park Geun-hye in exchange for political support for the 2015 Samsung C&T–Cheil Industries merger, which helped consolidate Lee’s control. After multiple trials, in January 2021, Lee Jae-yong received a prison sentence of two and a half years related to the bribery case. In August 2021, he was released on parole after serving about 18 months of that sentence.

The legal proceedings against Lee Jae-yong coincided with the dismantling of Samsung’s internal “control tower” (the Future Strategy Office),  weakening its usual mechanism for coordinating major strategic decisions. As a result, Samsung delayed several large M&A decisions during this time.

Since Lee Jae-yong’s return, he continued to serve as the ultimate strategic arbiter, especially on major investments, acquisitions, and long-term technological strategy. However, this authority operates more through informal influence and board structures since the central secretariat has been dissolved.

Current Succession Position

By the time Lee Kun-hee died in October 2020, the generational transition had already been underway for six years. His son, Lee Jae-yong, had effectively led the group since the chairman’s incapacitation in 2014. What remained unresolved was not authority, but the formal transfer of ownership.

The scale of the challenge was unprecedented. The inheritance of Lee Kun-hee’s estate triggered an estimated ₩12 trillion inheritance tax bill, one of the largest in the country’s corporate history. In South Korea, inheritance taxes can exceed 50% of the estate’s value. For dynastic corporate families, such taxes can force the liquidation of strategic shareholdings and potentially weaken control over the enterprise itself.

The Lee family addressed the problem through a carefully structured liquidity strategy. Under South Korean law, inheritance taxes may be paid in instalments over several years. The family, therefore, opted for a multi-year payment plan running from 2021 to 2026.

To generate liquidity, several family members sold significant holdings across Samsung affiliates. Hong Ra-hee, Lee Kun-hee’s widow, together with daughters Lee Boo-jin and Lee Seo-hyun, gradually reduced portions of their shareholdings in various group companies.

Lee Jae-yong, by contrast, largely retained his stake in key entities such as Samsung Electronics and Samsung C&T, financing his tax obligations through personal loans and dividend income. As of 2025, he is also the largest shareholder of Samsung C&T, holding roughly 19.8–19.9% of the company, which positions the firm at the apex of the group’s ownership architecture.

The pattern reflects the deeper governance logic of the Samsung system. Not all shares carry equal strategic weight. While some holdings can be sold to generate liquidity, others function as structural control nodes within the ownership architecture. As a result, ownership within the family could shift to fund the tax payments, while control remained concentrated at the strategic apex of the group’s governance structure.

In effect, the inheritance challenge appears not to have fundamentally altered the dynasty’s influence over Samsung. The ownership structure that had been engineered in earlier years proved resilient enough to absorb even one of the largest inheritance tax obligations ever faced by a corporate family.

The Control Architecture

Today, Samsung’s governance rests on a layered ownership structure that allows the Lee family to maintain strategic influence with limited direct equity.

At the apex of this structure sits Samsung C&T, the construction and trading company that functions as the group’s effective control node. Lee Jae-yong is its largest shareholder, holding roughly 19.8–19.9% of the company.

Samsung C&T holds a major stake in Samsung Life Insurance, which in turn owns one of the largest voting blocks in Samsung Electronics, the technological and financial core of the group.

Control therefore, flows through a sequence of corporate links:

Lee family → Samsung C&T → Samsung Life Insurance → Samsung Electronics.

Through this architecture, the dynasty can exercise strategic influence over Samsung Electronics while holding less than 5% of the company directly.

This structure illustrates a central principle of governance in large family enterprises: control is often preserved not through direct ownership, but through the design of the ownership system itself. The result is a governance structure sometimes described as a “constellation model”: a network of interlocking shareholdings that collectively reinforce family authority across the group.

Operational leadership has simultaneously shifted toward professional management. Samsung Electronics currently operates under a dual-CEO structure aligned with its two core business pillars. One CEO oversees the Device Solutions (DS) division — responsible for semiconductors and memory chips — while the other leads the Device eXperience (DX) division, which includes smartphones, consumer electronics, and digital appliances. At the scale of Samsung’s operations, leadership credibility depends on deep industry expertise in rapidly evolving fields.

As of late 2025, the structure is led by Young Hyun Jun, who heads the semiconductor-focused Device Solutions division, and TM Roh, who leads the Device eXperience division covering mobile and consumer electronics.

This represents a significant shift from earlier generations. While Lee Byung-chul built the conglomerate and Lee Kun-hee personally drove its technological transformation, the third generation increasingly governs through institutional structures and professional leadership teams.

External Pressures And The Uncertain Fourth Generation

The governance environment surrounding Samsung is also changing.

South Korea’s government has introduced a series of reforms designed to address the so-called “Korea Discount”, the persistent undervaluation of Korean firms linked to opaque governance and weak minority shareholder protections.

Recent amendments to the Commercial Act now require corporate directors to consider the interests of all shareholders, a shift that places new constraints on transactions designed primarily to preserve family control.

For Samsung, this creates a structural tension: cross-shareholdings, intra-group mergers, and strategic ownership concentration are precisely the practices regulators now seek to limit.

In an unexpected move, Lee Jae-yong publicly stated in 2020 that he does not intend to pass management control of Samsung to his children. Whether this represents a genuine break with dynastic tradition or a strategic response to political pressure remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that the Samsung system has entered a new phase. The third generation has succeeded in stabilising control under extraordinarily difficult structural conditions. The next challenge will be determining whether the dynasty continues to govern the group, or whether Samsung gradually evolves into a fully institutionalised corporation where ownership and leadership are permanently separated.

The Four Abundances

The Samsung story is often told through technology breakthroughs, market share, or geopolitical influence. For family offices, however, the more instructive lens is structural: how the dynasty managed the four forms of capital that sustain multigenerational families: wealth, relationships, time, and purpose.

Wealth

The Samsung dynasty has preserved control across generations, despite limited direct ownership. Samsung’s governance architecture relies on a layered ownership chain. One key link in this structure is Samsung Life Insurance, which held approximately 8.51% of Samsung Electronics, while Lee Jae-yong himself owned only about 1.65% directly. Through this structure, relatively small ownership stakes translate into significant voting influence. Through this structure, the Lee family maintains strategic influence over the group’s most valuable company while holding less than 5% of Samsung Electronics directly.

Even the enormous inheritance tax following Lee Kun-hee’s death did not fundamentally disrupt the control architecture. The family financed the obligation through share sales and loans while ensuring that the strategic ownership nodes remained intact.

From a wealth governance perspective, Samsung represents an advanced example of ownership architecture designed specifically for generational continuity.

Relationships

Family relationships within the Samsung dynasty have often been more complex than its corporate structure.

The founder’s decision to bypass his eldest son in favour of Lee Kun-hee created long-term tension between the siblings. Despite this early rupture, the second generation implemented a stabilising solution. Several business divisions were gradually spun off to other branches of the extended family — including CJ, Shinsegae, and Hansol — reducing the number of stakeholders competing for influence within the core Samsung group.

Within the third generation, the structure has remained relatively stable. Lee Jae-yong’s sisters — Lee Boo-jin and Lee Seo-hyun —  hold senior leadership roles within Samsung affiliates, yet operational authority is clearly concentrated in the chairman.

The family, therefore, achieved a governance balance often seen in large dynasties: broad participation paired with a single strategic decision-maker.

Time

Samsung’s history illustrates how dynastic enterprises accumulate institutional memory across generations.

The founder established the entrepreneurial base through trade and early industrial expansion. Lee Kun-hee then transformed the group technologically, repositioning Samsung as a global leader in semiconductors and electronics. The third generation inherited a system already deeply embedded in global markets.

Yet the timing of the most recent transition exposed an important governance constraint. Lee Kun-hee’s sudden incapacitation in 2014 forced the generational transfer of authority before the ownership architecture had been fully stabilised.

The controversial 2015 merger that repositioned Samsung C&T at the centre of the ownership structure ultimately secured the succession. However, the episode demonstrates a broader lesson for dynastic enterprises: governance structures should ideally be stabilised before leadership transitions begin.

When ownership architecture must be redesigned during a succession process, the family becomes exposed to regulatory scrutiny, shareholder resistance, and political pressure. Samsung ultimately navigated the transition successfully, but under far more turbulent conditions than long-term planning would normally allow.

Purpose

Perhaps the most striking development across three generations is the evolution of Samsung’s purpose.

What began as a regional trading company has become an institution deeply embedded in South Korea’s economic identity. Samsung’s businesses collectively generate revenue equivalent to roughly 20% of the country’s economic output, and its flagship company remains one of the world’s most influential technology firms.

This scale has shifted the nature of family stewardship. The Lee family now operates less as entrepreneurial founders and more as custodians of a national industrial system.

That shift is visible in governance reforms over the past decade: stronger boards, professional leadership teams, and increasing regulatory oversight.

The dynasty still shapes the strategic direction of the group. Yet the organisation has evolved beyond any single generation — an institution where family influence must coexist with public markets, global competition, and national expectations.

Taken together, the four abundances reveal the deeper architecture of the Samsung dynasty. Wealth has been preserved through structural design. Relationships have been stabilised through selective consolidation. Time has produced institutional resilience. And purpose has expanded from family ambition to national significance.

Few family enterprises have developed these four dimensions at a comparable scale. Yet the structures that enabled Samsung’s rise now face increasing scrutiny as global governance standards evolve.

Where a Family Council Canvas Could Have Helped

The Samsung story is often analysed through corporate governance, tax strategy, and capital markets. Yet several of the tensions that plagued the dynasty began within the family system itself.

In retrospect, several moments suggest that a structured family governance framework, such as the Family Council Canvas, could have reduced friction and clarified strategic choices.

Clarifying Succession Expectations Early

The founder’s decision to bypass his eldest son was ultimately effective from a business perspective, but it left the family hierarchy unresolved and resurfaced in litigation between siblings decades later. The episode illustrates a common governance challenge: succession decisions are often communicated operationally but not processed collectively within the family system.

A structured family governance process could have created space to address questions such as:

• What criteria determine leadership succession?
• How should siblings who are not successors participate in the enterprise?
• How will ownership and influence be balanced across family branches?

When left unanswered, these questions resurface later, often under far less ideal conditions.

2. Aligning Family Ownership with Strategic Architecture

Samsung eventually developed an extraordinarily sophisticated ownership structure that successfully preserved family control despite low direct share ownership. Yet the architecture emerged largely through corporate restructuring, not through an explicit family governance framework.

A structured governance platform could have helped the family collectively explore:

• the long-term implications of cross-shareholding structures
• the balance between control and transparency
• how ownership decisions affect relationships across generations.

Such conversations are often difficult precisely because they combine financial, emotional, and legacy considerations.

3. Preparing the Next Generation

The third-generation transition exposed a structural challenge that had developed over time. By the early 2010s, Samsung Electronics had become the technological and financial core of the group, yet the Lee family held only a small direct stake in the company. At the same time, South Korea’s inheritance tax made a direct transfer of shares extremely costly.

The solution — the 2015 merger that repositioned Samsung C&T at the centre of the ownership structure — ultimately secured the succession. But the restructuring occurred under intense pressure following Lee Kun-hee’s incapacitation in 2014.

From a governance perspective, the episode illustrates a broader principle: ownership architecture should ideally be stabilised long before a generational transition begins. When structural adjustments are implemented late, they are more likely to trigger regulatory scrutiny, shareholder opposition, and reputational risk.

A structured family governance process could have helped the family examine these structural questions earlier, exploring how ownership, control, and taxation would interact during a sudden transition process.

4. Clarifying the Family’s Long-Term Role in the Enterprise

The Samsung system now stands at a strategic crossroads. The third generation succeeded in stabilising control under difficult structural conditions. Yet the question of whether the dynasty intends to govern Samsung indefinitely remains open.

Lee Jae-yong has publicly stated that he does not necessarily intend to pass leadership of the company to his children. This raises a fundamental governance question for the family: should Samsung remain a family-governed enterprise, or gradually evolve into a fully institutionalised corporation where ownership and leadership are permanently separated?

Questions of this magnitude extend beyond corporate governance. They concern the family’s long-term identity in relation to the enterprise — whether the family sees itself primarily as operators, strategic stewards, or financial owners.

A structured governance framework, such as the Family Council Canvas by The Cecily Group, can support these conversations. The framework helps families organise governance discussions around four interconnected dimensions — wealth, relationships, time, and purpose — allowing strategic questions about succession, ownership, and legacy to be addressed before they emerge under crisis conditions.

Advisors working with multigenerational families often find that the most difficult governance challenges arise from the absence of a shared structure for conversation. The Family Council Canvas was designed precisely to fill that gap.

More information about the framework can be found here:
https://thececilygroup.com/family-council-canvas/

What This Case Teaches Family Offices

The Samsung dynasty illustrates how the challenges of succession evolve as family enterprises grow into global institutions. What begins as a leadership transition can ultimately become a problem of governance architecture, capital structure, and legitimacy. Several structural lessons emerge for family offices and advisors.

1. Control Is an Architectural Problem

As companies scale and external shareholders enter the picture, control can rarely be preserved through ownership alone. Samsung demonstrates how governance structures — cross-shareholdings, strategic affiliates, and institutional coordination — can extend influence far beyond direct equity stakes. For large families operating in public markets, the question is therefore how the ownership system is designed.

2. Ownership Architecture Must Precede Succession

The most consequential restructuring of the Samsung system — the merger that repositioned Samsung C&T at the centre of the ownership network — occurred only after the third-generation transition had already begun. While the strategy ultimately secured control, implementing such structural changes under time pressure triggered intense scrutiny from regulators, investors, and the public. For family enterprises, this illustrates a broader governance principle: the architecture of ownership should be stabilised long before succession becomes urgent. When structural adjustments occur early, they can be implemented gradually and with greater legitimacy.

3. Corporate Governance Cannot Substitute for Family Governance

Samsung’s corporate governance mechanisms became increasingly sophisticated across generations. Yet the family system itself still experienced tensions that resurfaced decades after earlier succession decisions. This reflects a common pattern in large family enterprises: businesses invest heavily in financial and corporate structures while underinvesting in family governance processes that align expectations among family members. Both systems are necessary. Without clear family governance, unresolved questions about leadership, participation, and ownership can eventually spill into the corporate sphere.

4. Dynastic Leadership Evolves into Institutional Stewardship

Across three generations, the role of the Lee family gradually shifted. The founder built a trading enterprise. The second generation transformed it into a global technology company. The third generation governs a system that now operates at a national and global scale. At that level, leadership becomes less about direct operational control and more about stewarding a complex institutional ecosystem involving professional managers, public investors, regulators, and national economic interests. For many large family businesses, this evolution is inevitable.

Closing Thoughts

Samsung’s rise began with entrepreneurial vision, but its endurance has depended on governance structures capable of carrying that vision across generations. As family enterprises grow into institutions of global scale, succession becomes an ongoing exercise in designing systems that balance ownership, authority, and legitimacy over time.

For family offices advising multigenerational dynasties, the Samsung case is a reminder that the durability of a family enterprise ultimately rests on structures that sustain the enterprise across generations while preserving meaningful family control.

Disclaimer: This article is a case study based on publicly available information and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. The analysis and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not constitute factual claims about the private lives or intentions of the individuals discussed. Images and excerpts from third-party sources are included solely for purposes of commentary and criticism, with attribution provided where sources are known.

References

Bennedsen, M. and Henry, B., 2017. Samsung’s Lee family succession crisis shows the importance of long-term planning. [online] University of Copenhagen. Available at: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/news/2017/samsungs-lee-family-succession-crisis-shows-the-importance-of-long-term-planning/ [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Chosun Daily, 2026. Samsung Family Concludes 12 Trillion Won Inheritance Tax. [online] Available at: https://www.chosun.com/english/industry-en/2026/01/22/QSBYFE27PFBDXE2WIACRGS44VQ/ [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Fritzell, M., 2026. South Korea’s Value-Up Reforms. [online] Asian Century Stocks. Available at: https://www.asiancenturystocks.com/korean-reforms/ [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

IMD Business School, 2017. Family Leadership Challenges: Disrupting the Momentum at Samsung. [online] Available at: https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/strategy/case-studies/family-leadership-challenges-disrupting-the-momentum-at-samsung/ [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

KED Global, 2025. Samsung Electronics names new DX, DS co-CEOs and brings in global science talent in sweeping leadership reshuffle. [online] Available at: https://www.kedglobal.com/leadership-management/newsView/ked202511210011 [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Korea Herald, 2024. Lee Jae-yong acquitted of stock-rigging charges in 2015 merger. [online] Available at: https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10413403 [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

KoreanLII, 2025. Legal battle over Samsung’s 2015 merger. [online] Available at: http://www.koreanlii.or.kr/w/index.php/Legal_battle_over_Samsung%27s_2015_merger [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Samsung Electronics, 2025. 2025 Letter to Shareholders. [online] Available at: https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/ir/docs/2025_letter_to_sharholders_en.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Shin, H., 2019. Transfer of Control and Ownership Structure. [online] California State University. Available at: https://www.csulb.edu/sites/default/files/document/hojong_shin_20191005_transfer_of_control.pdf [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

The Guardian, 2025. Samsung Electronics co-CEO Han Jong-hee dies of heart attack at 63. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/25/han-jong-hee-samsung-ceo-dead [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].

Yu, G. and Gray, T., 2017. Succession Planning at Samsung: The Merger Formula of Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T. [online] Harvard Business School. Available at: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=51807 [Accessed 12 Mar 2026].