No abstract

This paper compares the environmental performance of family and nonfamily public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions. We found that family-controlled public firms protect their socioemotional wealth by having a better environmental performance than their nonfamily counterparts, particularly at the local level, and that for the nonfamily firms, stock ownership by the chief executive officer (CEO) has a negative environmental impact. We also found that the positive effect of family ownership on environmental performance persists independently of whether the CEO is a family member or serves both as CEO and board chair.

This article makes the case for the socioemotional wealth (SEW) approach as the potential dominant paradigm in the family business field. The authors argue that SEW is the most important differentiator of the family firm as a unique entity and, as such, helps explain why family firms behave distinctively. In doing so, the authors review the concept of SEW, its different dimensions, and its links with other theoretical approaches. The authors also address the issue of how to measure this construct and offer various alternatives for operationalizing it. Finally, they offer a set of topics that can be pursued in future studies using the SEW approach.

While family business research has prominently recognized that family firms are motivated by nonfinancial factors, the literature has remained relatively silent about whether or not these firms are more likely than others to engage actively with their stakeholders, who often have nonpecuniary demands. This paper argues that family firms are more prone to adopt proactive stakeholder engagement (PSE) activities because by doing so they preserve and enhance their socioemotional wealth (SEW). We explore the impact of the different dimensions of SEW on PSE and identify distinctive logics that explain the adoption of such practices. Finally, we offer a set of topics for future studies.

This paper conducts an empirical study as to whether family firms are more socially responsible than their nonfamily counterparts and explores the conditions in which this difference in social behavior occurs. We argue that family firms, given their socioemotional wealth bias, have a positive effect on social dimensions linked to external stakeholders, yet have a negative impact on internal social dimensions. Thus, family firms can be socially responsible and irresponsible at the same time. We also suggest that institutional and organizational conditions act as catalysts in the relationship between firm type and corporate social responsibility (CSR). General support for our thesis that family firms neglect internal social dimensions came from the study of a sample of 598 listed European firms over a period of 4 years. Moreover, while national standards and industry conditions influence the degree of CSR in nonfamily firms, these factors do not affect family firms. However, family firms' social activities are more sensitive to declining organizational performance.