Exploring the Role of Ownership Structure in Decisions on Employee-Oriented Corporate Social Responsibility Practices

Abstract

Purpose -To analyze the effect of different ownership structures on employeeoriented corporate social responsibility (CSR).Theoretical framework -Agency theory is adopted to explain how the ownership structure is capable of changing the intensity of implementation of CSR practices aimed at employees. Design/methodology/approach -The sample comprises companies listed on the Brasil, Bolsa, Balcão (B3) between 2010 and 2018. The data collection used the reference form from the B3, Economática®, and CSRHub as sources, and the multiple linear regression method of generalized least squares.Findings -The study identifies different strategic orientations according to ownership concentration and the identity of the controlling shareholder. Family and state-owned companies do not seem motivated to develop CSR practices aimed at employees, while multinational companies assume that these practices should be implemented. Practical & social implications of research -The research contributes to understanding the behavior of different ownership identities, which can lead to different patterns of adoption of CSR practices aimed at employees.Originality/value -The study identified different strategic CSR orientations, according to ownership concentration and the identity of the controlling shareholder. Family and state-owned companies do not seem motivated to develop CSR practices aimed at employees, while multinational companies assume the importance of these practices. Companies with institutional ownership do not have clearly defined behavior in terms of CSR. These different results seem to

Prácticas sociales de RSE en empresas familiares. ¿Contribuyen a la sostenibilidad empresarial y los ODS 3, 4, 5 y 8? Una revisión sistemática de la literatura

“…Do they contribute to business sustainability and SDGs 3, 4, 5 and 8? A systematic review of literature 109 organizacional (Barchiesi y Colladon, 2021;Discua, 2020;Kavadis y Thomsen, 2023;Ramos et al, 2021) y es una razón para no identificar resultados claros de estas prácticas (Barchiesi y Colladon, 2021;Pinheiro et al, 2022;Ramos et al, 2021;Su et al, 2022).…”

“…Respecto a los factores organizacionales y prácticas estratégicas, la evidencia apunta a que, a pesar de que las empresas familiares generan prácticas sociales de RSE, los conceptos, lineamientos y gestión son confusos y no se toman como parte de la estrategia organizacional en el largo plazo (Barchiesi y Colladon, 2021;Discua, 2020;Kavadis y Thomsen, 2023;Ramos et al, 2021). Debido a que existe una confusión en la práctica y gestión de la RSE, no se identifican resultados en otras áreas y no hay claridad sobre efectos asociados a la sostenibilidad en el tiempo, a pesar de que haya interés al respecto, y esto se atribuye a sus particularidades (Combs et al, 2023;Oware y Botchway 2023, Rivo et al, 2021Pinheiro et al, 2022;Ramos et al, 2021;Su et al, 2022;Chakrabarti, 2023;Mariani et al, 2021, Smith et al, 2022.…”