This article follows recent development on the socioemotional wealth perspective to examine the impact of family involvement on corporate charitable donations. Based on data collected from 2,821 Chinese private firms, we find that (a) family ownership and the duration of family control positively affect charitable donations and (b) when the next generation is unwilling to take over the business, the positive relationship between family ownership and charitable donations becomes weaker. These findings show that firms’ proactive stakeholder engagement is susceptible to family involvement. They also highlight the possible existence of the “dark” effect of certain socioemotional wealth dimensions on firms’ proactive stakeholder engagement.
AdamsM.HardwickP. (2002). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 641-654.
2.
AmbroseD. M. (1983). Transfer of the family-owned business. Journal of Small Business Management, 21, 49-56.
3.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. M. (2004). Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 209-237.
4.
BarnettM. L.SalomonR. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1101-1122.
5.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924-973.
6.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gómez-MejíaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279.
7.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gómez-MejíaL. R. (2014). Family-controlled firms and stakeholder management: A socioemotional wealth preservation perspective. In SharmaP.MelinL.NordqvistM. (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business (pp. 179-195). London, England: Sage.
8.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gómez-MejíaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82-113.
9.
BertrandM.SchoarA. (2006). The role of family in family firms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 73-96.
10.
BiancoM.BontempiM. E.GolinelliR.ParigiG. (2013). Family firms’ investments, uncertainty and opacity. Small Business Economics, 40, 1035-1058.
11.
BrammerS.MillingtonA. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1343.
12.
BriysE.SchlesingerH. (1990). Risk aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 458-467.
13.
Cabrera-SuárezK.De Saá-PérezP.García-AlmeidaD. (2001). The succession process from a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14, 37-46.
14.
CarrollA. B. A. (1979). Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
15.
CennamoC.BerroneP.CruzC.Gómez-MejíaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36, 1153-1173.
16.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.PearsonA. W.BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centred non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36, 267-293.
17.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SharmaP. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29, 555-575.
18.
ChrismanJ. J.PatelP. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioural agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 976-997.
19.
ClaessensS.DjankovS.FanJ. P.LangL. H. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57, 2741-2771.
20.
DyerW. G. (2003). The family: The missing variable in organisational research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27, 401-416.
21.
DyerW. G.WhettenD. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 785-802.
22.
FanG.WangX. (2006). NERI index of marketization of China’s provinces. Beijing, China: Economics Science Press.
23.
GodfreyP. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777-798.
24.
GodfreyP. C.MerrillC. B.HansenJ. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425-445.
25.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.
26.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.HynesK. T.Nunez-NickelM.Moyano-FuentesH. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risk in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137.
27.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.MakriM.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 223-252.
28.
GrossmanS. J.HartO. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 691-719.
29.
GreeningD. W.TurbanD. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39, 254-280.
30.
HabbershonT. G.PistruiJ. (2002). Enterprising families domain: Family-influenced ownership groups in pursuit of trans-generational wealth. Family Business Review, 15, 223-237.
31.
HarrisonJ. S.BosseD. A.PhillipsR. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58-74.
32.
HillmanA. J.KeimG. D.SchulerD. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30, 837-857.
33.
HoltD. T. (2012). Strategic decisions within family firms: Understanding the controlling family’s receptivity to internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1145-1151.
34.
JamesH. S. (1999). Owner as manager, extended horizons and the family firm. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6, 41-55.
35.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A.ZellwegerT. M. (2012). Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark side. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1175-1182.
36.
KleinS.AstrachanJ.SmyrniosK. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction, validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 321-339.
37.
KrollM.WrightP.TheerathornP. (1993). Whose interests do hired top managers pursue? An examination of select mutual and stock life insurers. Journal of Business Research, 26, 133-148.
38.
LiH.ZhangY. (2007). The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China’s transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 791-804.
39.
LiW.ZhangR. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 631-645.
40.
LiangX.WangL.CuiZ. (2014). Chinese private firms and internationalization: Effects of family involvement in management and family ownership. Family Business Review, 27, 126-141.
41.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H. (2011). Long-term orientation and inter-temporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1149-1169.
42.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H.MossT. W. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22, 241-264.
43.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?Strategic management journal, 21, 603-609.
44.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19, 73-87.
45.
MillerD.MinichilliA.CorbettaG. (2012). Is family leadership always beneficial?Strategic Management Journal, 34, 553-571.
46.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
47.
MohtashemiM.MuiL. (2003). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by social information: The role of trust and reputation in evolution of altruism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 223, 523-531.
48.
MorckR.YeungB. (2004). Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 391-409.
49.
MullerA.KräusslR. (2011). Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donation. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 911-929.
50.
PetersT. J.WatermanR. H. (1984). In search of excellence. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 8(3), 85-86.
51.
PettigrewA. M. (1979). On studying organisational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
52.
PorterM. E.KramerM. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
53.
ScheinE. H. (1983). Organisational culture. Organisational Dynamics, 12, 13-28.
54.
ScheinE. H. (1986). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among inside directions in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 179-194.
56.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organisation Science, 12, 99-116.
57.
SeifertB.MorrisS. A.BartkusB. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business & Society, 43, 135-161.
58.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2003). Succession planning as planned behaviour: Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16, 1-15.
59.
SurrocaJ.TribóJ. A.WaddockS. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463-490.
60.
VolpinP. F. (2002). Governance with poor investor protection: Evidence from top executive turnover in Italy. Journal of Financial Economics, 64(1), 61-90.
61.
VroomV. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.
62.
WangH.QianC. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1159-1181.
63.
WestheadP.CowlingM. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 31-56.
64.
ZellwegerT. M.KellermannsF. W.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for trans-generational control. Organisation Science, 23, 851-868.
65.
ZellwegerT. M.NasonR. S.NordqvistM.BrushC. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organisational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 229-248.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
