Our meta-analysis investigates the environmental sustainability performance of family firms (FFs) distinguishing between environmental hand- and footprint and accounting for FF heterogeneity. Based on a sample of 87 primary studies comprising 118,538 firms, we find no significant difference between FFs and non-FFs regarding their overall environmental sustainability performance. Yet, distinguishing between environmental hand- and footprint, we show that FFs have a lower footprint than non-FFs but do not differ regarding their handprint. Firm size, being a public firm, and type of family involvement moderate the effects of FF status on environmental sustainability performance. Our research note extends prior meta-analytical evidence and contributes to a more fine-grained and nuanced understanding of the environmental sustainability performance of FFs. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
AguileraR. V.Aragón-CorreaJ. A.MaranoV.TashmanP. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1468–1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321991212
2.
BaùM.ChiricoF.PittinoD.BackmanM.KlaessonJ. (2019). Roots to grow: Family firms and local embeddedness in rural and urban contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 360–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718796089
3.
BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
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(1), 82–113. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.82
BlockJ.HansenC.SteinmetzH. (2023). Are family firms doing more innovation output with less innovation input? A replication and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(4), 1496–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221084249
7.
CabernardL.PfisterS.OberschelpC.HellwegS. (2022). Growing environmental footprint of plastics driven by coal combustion. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00807-2
8.
CarneyM.Van EssenM.GedajlovicE. R.HeugensP. P. (2015). What do we know about private family firms? A meta–analytical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12054
9.
CheungM. W.-L. (2015). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
10.
CheungM. W.-L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6
11.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300402
12.
ChrismanJ. J.PatelP. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0211
13.
CombsJ. G.JaskiewiczP.RaviR.WallsJ. L. (2022). More bang for their buck: Why (and when) family firms better leverage corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 49(2), 575–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211066057
14.
DeephouseD. L.JaskiewiczP. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12015
15.
DesaiH.LamP.LiB.RajgopalS. (2023). An analysis of carbon-reduction pledges of US oil and gas companies. Management Science, 69(6), 3748–3758. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4765
16.
DyerW. G. (2018). Are family firms really better? Reexamining “examining the ‘family effect’ on firm performance.”Family Business Review, 31(2), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518776516
17.
DyerW. G.WhettenD. A. (2006). Family Firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00151.x
18.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
19.
Flores-RiveraC.Serrano-BediaA. M.García-PiqueresG. (in press). Motivations and outcomes of environmental corporate sustainability in family and non-family Mexican firms: The mediating role of eco-innovation strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2574
20.
GrönmanK.PajulaT.SillmanJ.LeinoM.VatanenS.KasurinenH.SoininenA.SoukkaR. (2019). Carbon handprint—An approach to assess the positive climate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.233
21.
GuillaumeJ. H. A.SojamoS.PorkkaM.GertenD.JalavaM.LankoskiL.LehikoinenE.LettenmeierM.PfisterS.UsvaK.WadaY.KummuM. (2020). Giving legs to handprint thinking: Foundations for evaluating the good we do. Earth’s Future, 8(6), e2019EF001422. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001422
22.
HieblM. R.LiZ. (2020). Non-family managers in family firms: Review, integrative framework and future research agenda. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 763–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0308-x
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd edition): Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage.
25.
JohnsonM. P.SchalteggerS. (2016). Two decades of sustainability management tools for SMEs: How far have we come?Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12154
26.
KraglJ.PalermoA.XiG.BlockJ. (2023). Hiring family or non-family managers when non-economic (sustainability) goals matter? A multitask agency model. Small Business Economics, 61, 675–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00706-6
27.
LähdesmäkiM.SiltaojaM.SpenceL. J. (2019). Stakeholder salience for small businesses: A social proximity perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158, 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3707-z
28.
LakanenL.KasurinenH.GrönmanK.BehmK.VatanenS.PajulaT.SoukkaR. (2022). Developing the nitrogen handprint approach to quantify the positive impacts of industrial symbiosis on nitrogen cycles. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 6, 100090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100090
29.
LakensD.HilgardJ.StaaksJ. (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(24), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
30.
MatuštíkJ.KočíV. (2021). What is a footprint? A conceptual analysis of environmental footprint indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124833
31.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI.LesterR. H. (2011). Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: Social context, identity, and institutional logics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00896.x
32.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2021). Family firms: A breed of extremes?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720964186
33.
MiroshnychenkoI.De MassisA.BarontiniR.TestaF. (2022). Family firms and environmental performance: A meta-analytic review. Family Business Review, 35(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211064409
34.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.ChrismanJ. J.SpenceL. J. (2011). Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121215
35.
NorrisG. A.BurekJ.MooreE. A.KirchainR. E.GregoryJ. (2021). Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(3), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01874-5
36.
O’BoyleE. H.Jr.PollackJ. M.RutherfordM. W. (2012). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.002
37.
PengY.-S.LinS.-S. (2009). National culture, economic development, population growth and environmental performance: The mediating role of education. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0036-x
38.
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
39.
RauS. B.Schneider-SiebkeV.GüntherC. (2019). Family firm values explaining family firm heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 32(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519846670
40.
RichardsonK.SteffenW.LuchtW.BendtsenJ.CornellS. E.DongesJ. F.DrükeM.FetzerI.BalaG.von BlohW.FeulnerG.FiedlerS.GertenD.GleesonT.HofmannM.HuiskampW.KummuM.MohanC.Nogués-BravoD.. . . RockströmJ. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
41.
SchmidtS.KinneJ.LautenbachS.BlaschkeT.LenzD.ReschB. (2022). Greenwashing in the US metal industry? A novel approach combining SO2 concentrations from satellite data, a plant-level firm database and web text mining. Science of the Total Environment, 835, 155512.
SharmaP.SharmaS. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121218
44.
ShiveS. A.ForsterM. M. (2020). Corporate governance and pollution externalities of public and private firms. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1296–1330. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz079
45.
StammbachD.WebersinkeN.BinglerJ. A.KrausM.LeippoldM. (2022). A dataset for detecting real-world environmental claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00507.
46.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH.GilesM.HeckemeyerJ. H.JohnstonR. J.LarocheP.NelsonJ. P.PaldamM.PootJ.PughG.RosenbergerR. S.RostK. (2013). Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines: Reporting guidelines for meta-regression analysis in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12008
47.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
48.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT.MillerE.BacheS.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD.SpinuV.. . . YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
51.
WoodJ. A. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296638
52.
YuB.ZengS.ChenH.MengX.TamC. (2021). Doing more and doing better are two different entities: Different patterns of family control and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2605
53.
ZellwegerT. M.NasonR. S.NordqvistM.BrushC. G. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00466.x
54.
ZhaoX.HuningA. J.BurekJ.GuoF.KropaczekD. J.PointerW. D. (2022). The pursuit of net-positive sustainability for industrial decarbonization with hybrid energy systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132349
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.
