This study addresses the heterogeneity of family firms in their engagement with corporate social responsibility (CSR). We build on stewardship theory and socioemotional wealth to explore the foundations of CSR in family firms and to examine whether the extent of engagement is based on values, and how and why this happens. We use the interpretative method of grounded theory to address these questions. Based on 12 case studies of Spanish family firms, this article illustrates the patterns of influence of family involvement and values in explaining the extent and scope of CSR.
AdamsJ. S.TaschianA.ShoreT. H. (1996). Ethics in family and nonfamily owned firms: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 9, 157-170.
2.
ArgyrisC. (1973). Organization man: Rational and self-actualizing. Public Administration Review, 33, 354-357.
3.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258-279.
4.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R.Larraza-KintanaM. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less?Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82-113.
5.
BinghamJ. B.DyerW. G.Jr.SmithI.AdamsG. L. (2011). A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 565-585.
6.
CampopianoG. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and family business: Different perspectives to explore an under investigated topic (Doctoral dissertation). Università degli studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
7.
CarrollA. B. (1996). Ethics and stakeholder management (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.
8.
CarrollA. B.ShabanaK. M. (2010). The firm case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85-105.
9.
CennamoC.BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1153-1173.
10.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.KellermannsF.ChangE. (2007). Are family managers agents or stewards? An exploratory study in privately held family firms. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1030-1038.
11.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.ZahraS. A. (2003). Creating wealth in family firms through managing resources: comments and extensions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 359-365.
12.
CiocirlanC. (2008). Analyzing the social responsibility of small, family-owned businesses: A research agenda. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 13(4), 86-100.
13.
CorbettaG.SalvatoA. (2004). Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on “Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence.”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 355-362.
14.
CraigJ.DibrellC. (2006). The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 19, 275-288.
15.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.
16.
DebickiB. J.MathemeC. F.IIIKellermansF. W.ChrismanJ. J. (2009). Family business research in the new millennium: An overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why. Family Business Review, 22, 151-166.
17.
Déniz-DénizD.Cabrera-SuárezM. K. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 59-71.
18.
DonaldsonL.DavisJ. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.
19.
DyerW. G.Jr. (1986). Cultural change in family firms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
DyerW. G.Jr.WhettenD. A. (2006). Family firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785-802.
21.
EddlestonK. A.KellermansF. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 545-565.
22.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
23.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32.
24.
European Commission. (2009). European Competitiveness Report (2008). Luxembourg: Author.
25.
GalloM. Á. (2004). The family business and its social responsibilities. Family Business Review, 17, 135-149.
26.
GibbertM.RuigrokW. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 710-737.
27.
GlewD. J. (2009). Personal values and performance in teams: An individual and team level analysis. Small Group Research, 20(10), 1-24.
28.
GodfreyP. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777-798.
29.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.De CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.
30.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J. L.Moyano-FuentesH. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risk in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137.
31.
GraaflandJ.Ven van deB.StoffeleN. (2003). Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 45-60.
32.
HoffmanJ.HoelscherM.SorensonR. (2006). Achieving sustained competitive advantage: A family capital theory. Family Business Review, 19, 135-145.
33.
HsuJ. L.ChengM. C. (2012). What prompts small and medium enterprises to engage in corporate social responsibility? A study from Taiwan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 288-305.
34.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
35.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A. (2007). A family perspective on when conflict benefits family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1048-1057.
36.
Krambia-KapardisM.HuntingfordJ. (2012). CSR and competitiveness in the Euro Med area, Responsible MED Project. Nycosia, Cyprus: AS Print X Press.
37.
LansbergI. (1999). Succeeding generations: Realizing the dream of families in business. Boston, MA: Harvard Firm School Press.
38.
MayerR. C.SchoormanF. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671-684.
39.
McGuireJ. B.SundgrenA.SchneeweisT. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and financial firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-872.
40.
MillerD.LeBreton-MillerI. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19, 73-87.
41.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.ChrismanJ. J.SpenceL. J. (2011). Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 235-255.
42.
MorckR.YeungB. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 367-382.
43.
NeubaumD. O.DibrellC.CraigJ. B. (2012). Balancing natural environmental concerns of internal and external stakeholders in family and non-family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(1), 28-37.
44.
NiehmL. SSwinneyJ.MillerN. J. (2008). Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 331-350.
45.
NordqvistM.HallA.MelinL. (2009). Qualitative research on family business: The relevance and usefulness of the interpretive approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 15, 294-308.
46.
O’BoyleE. H.Jr.RutherfordM. W.PollackJ. M. (2010). Examining the relation between ethical focus and financial performance in family firms: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 20, 1-17.
47.
PierceJ. L.KostovaT.DirksK. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298-310.
48.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
49.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationship in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(9), 99-116.
50.
SchulzeW.S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among inside directors at family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 179-194.
51.
SharmaP.IrvingP. G. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 13-33.
52.
SimonA.MarquesP.BikfalviA.MuñozM. D. (2012). Exploring value differences across family firms: The influence of choosing and managing complexity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(3), 132-146.
53.
SorensonR. L.GoodpasterK. E.HedbergP. R.YuA. (2009). The family point of view, family social capital, and firm performance: An exploratory test. Family Business Review, 22, 239-253.
54.
SuddabyR. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633-642.
55.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism vs. collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
56.
VallejoM. C. (2008). Is the culture of family firms really different? A value-based model for its survival through generations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 261-279.
57.
WardJ. L. (2004). Perpetuating the family business. Marietta, GA: Family Enterprise.
58.
WeberM. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26, 247-261.
59.
WiklundJ. (2006). Commentary: Family firms and social responsibility. Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 803-808.
60.
WoodD. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
61.
YinR. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
62.
ZahraS. A. (2003). International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 495-512.
63.
ZahraS. A.HaytonJ. C.NeubaumD. O.DibrellC.CraigJ. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 1035-1054.
64.
ZellwegerT.SiegerP.HalterF. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 521-536.
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.
