Family firms are often portrayed as an important yet conservative form of organization that is reluctant to invest in innovation; however, simultaneously, evidence has shown that family firms are flourishing and in fact constitute many of the world's most innovative firms. Our study contributes to disentangling this puzzling effect. We argue that family firms-owing to the family's high level of control over the firm, wealth concentration, and importance of nonfinancial goals-invest less in innovation but have an increased conversion rate of innovation input into output and, ultimately, a higher innovation output than nonfamily firms. Empirical evidence from a meta-analysis based on 108 primary studies from 42 countries supports our hypotheses. We further argue and empirically show that the observed effects are even stronger when the CEO of the family firm is a later-generation family member. However, when the CEO of the family firm is the firm's founder, innovation input is higher and, contrary to our initial expectations, innovation output is lower than that in other firms. We further show that the family firm-innovation input-output relationships depend on country-level factors; namely, the level of minority shareholder protection and the education level of the workforce in the country.We are grateful for the helpful comments of Linus Dahlander and the anonymous reviewers. Further, we acknowledge the valuable comments of

This study develops the concept of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility (Strategic CSR) by meta‐analyzing the available empirical evidence on the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP). Using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling on effect size data from 344 primary studies, our study documents four empirical mechanisms explaining how CSR positively affects CFP: by 1) enhancing firm reputation, 2) increasing stakeholder reciprocation, 3) mitigating firm risk, and 4) strengthening innovation capacity. We propose these four mechanisms to identify four causally relevant attributes that allow us to conceptually distinguish Strategic CSR from CSR more generally. Our findings indicate that the four mechanisms combined explain 20 per cent of the CSR‐CFP relationship, suggesting that considerable room remains for future empirical research. The development of an empirically informed, causal conceptualization of Strategic CSR responds to a long‐heard call for better‐specified concepts in empirical CSR research.

Despite its importance, there is no clear understanding of the uniqueness of family firms’ internationalization. This article sheds new light on this issue with a meta–analysis of 76 studies covering 41 countries. We show that the considerable study and cross–country differences in the relationship between family firm and internationalization are explained by the roles of family control, internationalization types, and home countries’ institutional contexts (i.e., minority shareholders protection and generalized trust of people from other countries). Therefore, we examine the existing divergent results using theories that reconcile some of these mixed findings and shed light on family firms’ specific internationalization challenges.

The influence of the state on firms in the global economy is alive and well. States have become dominant owners of companies in many countries around the world. Firms have also increasingly established political connections to access resources and improve their competitive positions. Nonetheless, our understanding of how state ownership and political connections affect firm performance remains limited and marked by conflicting findings. Using meta-analytical techniques on a sample of 210 studies spanning 139 countries, we examine two key research questions: (a) How do state ownership and political connections affect firm strategies and financial performance? and (b) How does firm-level strategic decision making mediate the relationships between state ownership, political connections, and firm financial performance? Our findings show that state ownership has a small negative effect on firm financial performance and that political connections have no direct consequences for performance. However, we find evidence that both state ownership and political connections have a profound effect on the strategies firms pursue, such as financial leverage, R&D intensity, and internationalization, and that these strategies play a mediating role in the state ownership–firm performance relationship. We conclude with some suggestions for fruitful future research in further connecting these two important and timely research fields.

How has the impact of ‘good corporate governance’ principles on firm performance changed over time in China? Amassing a database of 84 studies, 684 effect sizes, and 547,622 firm observations, we explore this important question by conducting a meta‐analysis on the corporate governance literature on China. The weight of evidence demonstrates that two major ‘good corporate governance’ principles advocating board independence and managerial incentives are indeed associated with better firm performance. However, we cannot find strong support for the criticisms against CEO duality. In addition, we go beyond a static perspective (such as certain governance mechanisms are effective or ineffective) by investigating the temporal hypotheses. We reveal that over time, with the improvement in the quality of market institutions and development of financial markets, the monitoring mechanisms of the board and state ownership become more strongly related to firm performance, whereas the incentive mechanisms lose their significance. Overall, our findings advance a dynamic institution‐based view by substantiating the case that institutional transitions matter for the relationship between governance mechanisms and firm performance in the second largest economy in the world.