Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate social responsibility performance in family and non-family firms: The perspective of socio-emotional wealth

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Asian Business & Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What are the impacts of socio-emotional wealth on the corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance of family firms? Using panel data (2007–2012) of publicly listed firms in Taiwan, this research adopts the perspective of socio-emotional wealth to compare the CSR performance of family and non-family firms. We found that overall socio-emotional wealth (measured by majority ownership and the ratio of independent directors on the board) is positively associated with CSR performance, and family ventures out-perform non-family firms. Theoretical, managerial and policy-making implications are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H. (2011) Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In: S. Zedeck (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 855–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amann, B., Jaussaud, J. and Martinez, I. (2012) Corporate social responsibility in Japan: Family and non-family business differences and determinants. Asian Business & Management 11 (3): 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, A.H. and Chu, W.-W. (2003) Beyond Late Development: Taiwan’s Upgrading Policies. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D., Okhuysen, G. and Perlow, L. (2001) Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review 26 (4): 512–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C. and Reeb, D.M. (2003) Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance 58 (3): 1301–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C. and Reeb, D.M. (2004) Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2): 209–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M.A., Sirmon, D.G. and Very, P. (2007) The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies 44 (1): 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, C.F. (2006) An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata. Texas: Stata Press, (Software).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A.A. (1931) Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review 44 (7): 1049–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gómez-Mejía, L.R. (2012) Socio-emotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches and agenda for future research. Family Business Review 25 (3): 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L.R. and Larraza-Kintata, M. (2010) Social – Emotional wealth and corporate response to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly 55 (1): 82–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinelli, C. (2011) Boards of directors in family firms: An exploratory study of structure and group process. Family Business Review 24 (2): 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, J.B., Dyer, Jr. W.G., Smith, I. and Adams, G.L. (2011) A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics 99 (4): 565–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J.H. and Wagner, M. (2014) The effect of family ownership on different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from large US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 23 (7): 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, K.H., Lumpkin, G.T., Payne, G.T. and Zachary, M.A. (2014) Researching long-term orientation: A validation study and recommendations for future research. Family Business Review 27 (1): 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.L. (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gómez-Mejía, L.R. (2012) Socio-emotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36 (6): 1153–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Certo, S.T. and Semadeni, M. (2006) Strategy research and panel data: Evidence and implications. Journal of Management 32 (3): 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, E.-H. and Voss, H. (2011) Determinants of international environmental strategies of Korean firms: An explorative case-study approach. Asian Business & Management 10 (3): 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, H.-M. and Chan, S.-T. (2012) Ownership structure, family leadership, and performance of affiliate firms in large family business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29 (2): 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S. and Lang, L.H.P. (2000) The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58 (1–2): 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Wealth (2013) Excellence in corporate social responsibility, http://issue.cw.com.tw/issue/csr/2012news1-3.jsp, accessed 30 January 2013.

  • Craig, J. and Dibrell, C. (2006) The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review 19 (4): 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R. and Cannella, Jr. A.A. (2003) Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review 28 (3): 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D.R., Daily, C.M., Johnson, J.L. and Ellstrand, A.E. (1999) Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 42 (6): 674–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Déniz-Déniz, M.C. and Suárez, M.K.C. (2005) Corporate social responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 56 (1): 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H.B. and Pukthuanthong, K. (2013) Legitimacy signals and family IPO performances. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14 (1): 156–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, E.M. (1932) For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review 45 (7): 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, Jr. G.W. (2003) The family: The missing variable in organizational research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 27 (4): 401–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, Jr. G.W. and Whetten, D.A. (2006) Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (6): 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. (1983) Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M.A., Haynes, G.W., Schrank, H.L. and Danes, S.M. (2010) Socially responsible processes of small family business owners: Exploratory evidence from the national family business survey. Journal of Small Business Management 48 (4): 524–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J.L. and Reay, T. (2015) Sustaining the family business with minimal financial rewards: How do family farms continue? Family Business Review 28 (2): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P.C. (2005) The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review 30 (4): 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P.C., Merrill, C.B. and Hansen, J.M. (2009) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal 30 (4): 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and Castro, J. (2011) The bind that ties: Socio-emotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annual 5 (1): 653–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007) Socio-emotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (1): 106–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M.A. and Jo, H. (2011) Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics 100 (1): 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.-C., Ding, H.-B. and Kao, M.-R. (2009) Salient stakeholder voices: Family business and green innovation adoption. Journal of Management & Organization 15 (3): 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N.A. and Angelidis, J.P. (1995) The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5): 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N.A., Howard, D.P. and Angelidis, J.P. (2003) Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics 47 (4): 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Management Development (2012) World Competitiveness Yearbook 2012. Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD.

  • Jaskiewicz, P. and Klein, S. (2007) The impact of goal alignment on board composition and board size in family businesses. Journal of Business Research 60 (10): 1080–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.A. and Greening, D.W. (1999) The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, J. and Lievens, J. (2008) Pruning the family tree: An unexplored path to family business continuity and family harmony. Family Business Review 21 (4): 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. (1999) Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance 54 (2): 471–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasserre, P. and Schütte, H. (2006) Strategies for Asia Pacific: Meeting New Challenges, 3rd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G.T., Brigham, K.H. and Moss, T.W. (2010) Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22 (3–4): 241–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006) Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, C. and McConaughy, D. (1999) Founding family control and capital structure: The risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23 (4): 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R. and Yeung, B. (2004) Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (4): 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D. and Yeung, B. (2005) Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth. Journal of Economic Literature 43 (3): 655–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D.O., Dibrell, C. and Craig, J.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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehm, L.S., Swinney, J. and Miller, N.J. (2008) Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management 46 (3): 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J.S. and Salancik, G. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R.E. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2010) Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management 36 (1): 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T. and Whetten, D.A. (2011) What constitutes a theoretical contribution in family business? Family Business Review 24 (2): 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D.C. (2009) Corporate social responsibility and different stages of economic development: Singapore, Turkey, and Ethiopia. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4): 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein, S. and Wyatt, J.G. (1990) Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26 (2): 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W.S. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2015) Reifying socio-emotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (3): 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N. (2003) Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal 46 (2): 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2001) Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science 12 (2): 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. (2004) An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review 17 (1): 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. and Sharma, S. (2011) Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (2): 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1997) A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance 52 (2): 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D.G. and Hitt, M.A. (2003) Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27 (4): 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, M.-J. (2011) The effects of an environmental management system on intangible assets and corporate value: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing firms. Asian Business & Management 10 (3): 381–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valax, M. (2012) Beyond McDonald’s CSR in China: Corporation perspective and report from case study research on a damaged employment reputation. Asian Business and Management 11 (3): 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gils, A., Dibrell, C., Neubaum, D.O. and Craig, J.B. (2014) Social issues in the family enterprise. Family Business Review 27 (3): 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerkhof, P., Steijvers, T., Hendriks, W. and Voordeckers, W. (2015) The effect of organizational characteristics on the appointment of non-family managers in private family firms: The moderating role of socio-emotional wealth. Family Business Review 28 (2): 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P., Weber, K. and Margolis, J.D. (2003) Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management 29 (6): 859–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A., Lumpkin, G.T., Sorenson, R.L. and Brigham, K.H. (2012) The landscape of family business outcomes: A summary and numerical taxonomy of dependent variables. Family Business Review 25 (1): 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T.M. and Nason, R.C. (2008) A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family Business Review 21 (3): 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J.Q., Zhu, H. and Ding, H.-B. (2013) Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics 114 (3): 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers, guest editors Drs Jeremy Moon, Hyoung Koo Moon and Rebecca Chung Hee Kim, and Editor-in-Chief Dr Michael A. Witt’s insights during the review process. We also appreciate assistance and contributions from Prof. Chueh-An Hsieh. The first author acknowledges the support of a research grant from the College of Business & Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and the third author the receipt of financial support from the ‘Aim for Top University Plan’ of the National Sun Yat-sen University and Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C., and sponsorship by the National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, under Grant Number: NSC 101-2410-H-214-021-MY2, 2012/08-2014/07.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 800 W. Main Street, Whitewater, 53190, WI, USA

    Andy Yu

  2. Management and International Business, Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola University Maryland, 4501 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA

    Hung-Bin Ding

  3. Department of Business Administration, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, 840, Taiwan

    Hsi-Mei Chung

Authors
  1. Andy Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hung-Bin Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsi-Mei Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsi-Mei Chung.

Additional information

This fourth revised paper is submitted to the Special Issue on New CSR dynamics in Asia? Institutions and systems in a more challenging era, Asian Business & Management.

Appendix

Appendix

Selection process and criteria for the ‘excellence in corporate social responsibility’ survey in Taiwan

Announcing institution: Survey Center, Common Wealth Magazine, Taiwan

Survey period: From mid-May to mid-July each year

First announcement year: 2007

Announcement time: End of October each year

Selected number: 30–50 public firms each year

Selection criteria and four CSR dimensions (these refer to the UN global compact, OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, etc.):

  1. 1

    Corporate governance: The evaluation of whether a firm has good corporate governance, for example, decision and information transparency in the board, quality of board meetings, and board performance.

  2. 2

    Long-term commitment: The evaluation of a firm’s commitment to its customers, employees, and investment in R&D.

  3. 3

    Social participation: The evaluation of whether a firm commits to a specific social issue and proactively uses its power for social change.

  4. 4

    Environmental protection: the evaluation of whether the firm has concrete goals and solid measures toward environmental protection and energy-saving.

Selection process:

Step 1: The committee chooses from the TEJ database those public firms that have positive performance over three consecutive years.

Step 2: The specialists on the evaluation committee assess the objective evidence as well as self-reported information from the firms selected in Step 1 on the four dimensions of CSR performance, narrowing down the total to 80–90 firms.

Step 3: The committee will further refer to other public reports or magazines for those firms selected in Step 2 to find additional evidence regarding the four dimensions of CSR performance, and discuss further.

Step 4: Final decision and discussion. The committee will discuss the finalists emerging from Steps 2 and 3, and reach a consensus on the top 30–50 firms to receive this honor. The process is repeated annually to generate the report and reward the selected firms.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, A., Ding, HB. & Chung, HM. Corporate social responsibility performance in family and non-family firms: The perspective of socio-emotional wealth. Asian Bus Manage 14, 383–412 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2015.16

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2015.16

Keywords

Search

Navigation