Letter to Editor
MALAYSIA wants more agropreneurs. We want younger people in agriculture, smarter farms, better technology, higher productivity and stronger domestic food production.
All these are necessary, but while we focus on creating the next generation of agricultural entrepreneurs, another question receives far less attention: who will take over the farms and agribusinesses we already have?
Many family-owned farms and food businesses have taken decades to build. Their founders accumulated practical knowledge, developed relationships with suppliers and customers, built markets and learned how to keep their businesses going through difficult periods.
When these founders eventually step aside, transferring the land or company shares may be relatively straightforward. Transferring the business itself is not.
If viable agribusinesses disappear because the next generation was never adequately prepared to continue them, Malaysia risks losing productive capacity that may take years to rebuild.
That makes succession more than a private family matter. It deserves a place in our wider food security conversation.
We want to produce more, but what about preserving what works?
Malaysia’s food security challenge is already visible in the numbers. According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM), Malaysia imported RM78.8 bil worth of food in 2023, compared with RM50.2 bil in 2018.
Malaysia’s ability to meet its own food requirements also varies considerably across commodities. In 2023, for example, the self-sufficiency ratio was only 15.9% for beef and buffalo meat and 10.6% for mutton and sheep meat.
These figures reinforce a simple point: domestic productive capacity matters. But increasing that capacity is only one side of the equation.
We must also think about how to retain productive businesses that are already operating.
Otherwise, Malaysia could find itself investing in creating new agropreneurs while established businesses with customers, suppliers, workers and markets quietly disappear during generational transition. That would be an expensive way to stand still.
You can inherit a farm, but not experience
Succession is often viewed through the lens of inheritance. Who gets the land? Who receives the shares?
Which child will eventually run the company? These are important questions, but ownership and capability are two very different things.
A successor can inherit farmland, machinery, greenhouses, processing facilities and an established brand. Experience is harder to inherit.
A founder may have spent decades learning which suppliers can be trusted, how workers should be managed, what customers expect, how to respond when costs rise and how to keep the business afloat during difficult periods.
Some of the most valuable knowledge in a family business may never appear in a manual, database or financial statement. It sits with the founder.
My research on Malaysian family businesses has reinforced the importance of preparing successors early, transferring practical knowledge and allowing the next generation sufficient time to develop the readiness to lead.
A son or daughter can become an owner overnight, but becoming capable of leading the business takes much longer.
Waiting until retirement may already be too late
One of the biggest risks is treating succession as something to discuss only when the founder is approaching retirement. By then, the family may already be running out of time.
Potential successors need exposure to the business before leadership changes hands. They need to understand operations, employees, suppliers and customers.
They also need opportunities to participate in decisions, gradually take responsibility and even make mistakes while the founder is still there to guide them.
Importantly, families need to discover whether the next generation actually wants the business. Not every entrepreneur’s child wants to become an entrepreneur, and not every child who wants the business is necessarily ready to lead it.
Starting the conversation earlier allows families to confront these realities before succession becomes an emergency.
A succession process that begins only when a founder becomes seriously ill, dies or is no longer capable of managing the company is not really succession planning. It is crisis management.
The surname alone does not make a CEO
Family businesses also need to confront an uncomfortable reality. Being the founder’s son or daughter does not automatically make someone the right person to lead the company.
Birth is not a leadership qualification. A successor may receive a title and formal authority, but credibility among employees, suppliers and customers still has to be earned.
This is particularly important when long-serving employees have worked alongside the founder for many years and have witnessed how the business was built.
The next generation therefore needs to demonstrate commitment and competence rather than simply arrive with a new title.
Working across different parts of the business, taking responsibility for projects and gradually participating in important decisions can help potential successors understand the organisation while building legitimacy.
Founders, meanwhile, must eventually learn to let go. There is little value in appointing the next generation to management positions if every meaningful decision must still return to the founder.
Eventually, transferring a business means transferring something more difficult than shares: authority.
The next generation could be the opportunity
Succession should not be viewed only as a risk. Handled well, it can become an opportunity to transform an established business.
The next generation may bring capabilities that the founder did not have when the business began.
They may be more comfortable with digital marketing, e-commerce, data, automation, branding or new ways of reaching consumers.
The founder, meanwhile, brings something equally valuable: experience, relationships, practical judgement and knowledge accumulated over decades.
One should not simply replace the other. The opportunity lies in combining both.
This is particularly relevant for agribusinesses facing changing consumer behaviour, rising operating costs, technological disruption and an increasingly uncertain business environment.
The question should therefore not simply be whether the next generation can maintain what the founder created, but whether they can take it further.
Are we overlooking businesses that already work?
Malaysia rightly invests in entrepreneurship, agricultural modernisation, financing, technology and programmes designed to encourage more people into business. But there is a potential blind spot.
Consider what is required to build a new agribusiness from scratch. An entrepreneur needs to develop products, find customers, establish relationships with suppliers, recruit workers, understand the market and earn trust.
An established family agribusiness may already have all these. If that business closes because succession was never properly managed, and resources are later spent helping another entrepreneur recreate the productive capacity that disappeared, the economy effectively pays twice.
First, we lose what was already working. Then, we try to rebuild it. This does not mean every family business must remain under family ownership forever.
Some businesses may be better served by professional managers, partnerships, restructuring or eventually a change in ownership.
Nor should the eldest son or daughter automatically become the next chief executive simply because of birth order.
The objective should not be to preserve family control at any cost. It should be to prevent viable productive businesses from disappearing simply because nobody prepared for what came next.
Make succession part of business resilience
Malaysia does not necessarily need another complicated programme simply because succession deserves greater attention.
Instead, our existing entrepreneurship and agricultural support ecosystem could begin treating succession readiness as part of long-term business resilience.
When an established family enterprise receives business advice, financing or development support, the conversation should not only be about its next expansion.
For a mature business, there is another useful question: what happens after the founder?
Potential successors may benefit from management exposure, mentoring and opportunities to develop the capabilities required to eventually assume greater responsibility.
Universities, business associations, financial institutions and government agencies can contribute by creating greater awareness and supporting business continuity.
But ultimately, the most important conversation begins within the family. Founders need to talk about the future before circumstances force them to.
Don’t wait until a good business disappears
Malaysia’s food security challenge will not be solved by succession planning alone. We still need better productivity, technology, infrastructure, financing, market access and resilient supply chains.
But there is little point in continuously creating productive capacity if we neglect the capacity already built.
A successful family agribusiness represents more than land, machinery and a company registration. It represents years of accumulated knowledge, relationships, jobs, customers and market access.
Once these disappear, rebuilding them may be much harder than preserving them in the first place.
So while Malaysia continues asking how to create more agropreneurs, perhaps we should add another question to the conversation: who will take over the businesses we already have?
Sometimes, strengthening food security does not begin by building something new. It begins by making sure that what already works does not end with its founder.—Sept 2, 2026
Dr Nadiah Mahmad Nasir is a Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Business & Communication, Universiti Malaysia Perlis.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Pexels
