Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Familienunternehmen und CSR

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Herausforderungen im Management von Familienunternehmen

  • 1081 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag diskutiert individuelle Charakteristika und motivationale Aspekte von Entscheider*innen als Einflussfaktoren auf das Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)-Engagement in Familienunternehmen und setzt sich in diesem Zusammenhang mit den führenden (familienbezogenen) Theorien und Konzepten auseinander. Der Beitrag nimmt damit im CSR-Familienunternehmensforschungsfeld eine „microfoundational-lens“-Perspektive ein. Damit wird der Blick auf individuelle Merkmale von Entscheider*innen in Familienunternehmen bei CSR-Investitionen geschärft, aber auch das Zusammenspiel mit dem Familieneinfluss bzw. dem Socioemotional Wealth (SEW) kritisch beleuchtet.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Adams, R. B., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science, 58(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shammari, M., Rasheed, A., & Al-Shammari, H. A. (2019). CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility: Does CEO narcissism affect CSR focus? Journal of Business Research, 104, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., & Brockman, P. (2017). The Local Roots of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, S., Lopez-Perez, M., & Rodriguez-Ariza, L. (2018). Board independence and corporate social responsibility disclosure: The mediating role of the presence of family ownership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbato, C. A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E. M. (2003). Communicating in the family: An examination of the relationship of family communication climate and interpersonal communication motives. Journal of Family Communication, 3(3), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional 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., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beutel, A. M., & Marini, M. M. (1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review, 60(3), 436–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatnagar, N., Sharma, P., & Ramachandran, K. (2020). Spirituality and Corporate Philanthropy in Indian Family Firms: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2014a). Ownership versus management effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large family and founder firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(4), 339–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2014b). 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 

  • Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 164–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’zali, B. (2013). The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(4), 1258–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2007). Religion and Attitudes to Corporate Social Responsibility in a Large Cross-Country Sample. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canavati, S. (2018). Corporate social performance in family firms: a meta-analysis. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(3), 235–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campopiano, G., & De Massis, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 511–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Cassia, L. (2012). The relationship between motivations and actions in corporate social responsibility: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business and Society, 13(3), 391–425.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2021). How CEO narcissism affects corporate social responsibility choice? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38, 897–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W. T., Zhou, G. S., & Zhu, X. K. (2019). CEO tenure and corporate social responsibility performance. Journal of Business Research, 95, 292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Tsai, T. (2005). The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintrakarn, P., Jiraporn, P., Tong, S., & Chatjuthamard, P. (2017a). Exploring the Effect of Religious Piety on Corporate Governance: Evidence from Anti-takeover Defenses and Historical Religious Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 469–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chintrakarn, P., Tong, S., & Jiraporn, P. (2017b). The Effect of Religious Piety on Managerial Entrenchment: Evidence from Entrenched Boards of Directors. Applied Economics Letters, 24(19), 1417–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronqvist, H., & Yu, F. (2017). Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 126(3), 543–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. (2014). Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1295–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui, J., Jo, H., & Velasquez, M. G. (2015). The Influence of Christian Religiosity on Managerial Decisions Concerning the Environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 203–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, J., Jo, H., & Velasquez, M. G. (2016). Community Religion, Employees, and the Social License to Operate. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 775–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, V., Ding, S., Liu, M., & Wu, Z. (2018). Revisiting the effect of family involvement on corporate social responsibility: A behavioral agency perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debrulle, J., Steffens, P., De Bock, K. W., De Winne, S., & Maes, J. (2023). Configurations of business founder resources, strategy, and environment determining new venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(2), 1023–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Advancing family business research: The promise of microfoundations. Family Business Review, 31(4), 386–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., Malmendier, U., & Rao, G. (2013). The importance of being marginal: Gender differences in generosity. American Economic Review, 103(3), 586–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, M., Wagner, E., & Pernsteiner, H. (2021). Founder-controlled family firms, overconfidence, and corporate social responsibility engagement: Evidence from survey data. Family Business Review, 34(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diéguez-Soto, J., Campos-Valenzuela, M., Callejón-Gil, Á. M., & Aldeanueva-Fernández, I. (2021). Family firm heterogeneity on CSR approach: A socio-emotional (SEW) perspective. Business Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444211063889

  • Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, X., Jian, W., Zeng, Q., & Du, Y. (2014). Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Polluting Industries: Does Religion Matter? Journal of Business Ethics,124(3), 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. (2016). Family control and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 73(C), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elia, S., Greve, P., Vallone, T., & Castellani, D. (2021). The micro-foundations of industrial diversification through foreign acquisitions: The multifaceted role of CEO experience. Long Range Planning, 54(6), 102104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, R. A., Gerken, M., Hack, A., & Hülsbeck, M. (2022a). Family firms as agents of sustainable development: A normative perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, R. A., Gerken, M., Hack, A., & Hülsbeck, M. (2022b). SMES’ reluctance to embrace corporate sustainability: The effect of stakeholder pressure on self-determination and the role of social proximity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 335, 130273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esparza Aguilar, J. L., & Reyes Fong, T. (2019). Practices of corporate social responsibility developed by Mexican family businesses and their impact on competitive success and innovation. TEC Empresarial, 13(2), 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., Marchica, M. T., & Mura, R. (2016). CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39, 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faller, C. M., & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018). Does equity ownership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature review of theories and recent empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fathallah, R., Sidani, Y., & Khalil, S. (2020). How Religion Shapes Family Business Ethical Behaviors: An Institutional Logics Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 647–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehre, K., & Weber, F. (2019). Why some are more equal: Family firm heterogeneity and the effect on management’s attention to CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(3), 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs, 74(5), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garces-Galdeano, L., Larraza-Kintana, M., Cruz, C., & Contin-Pilart, I. (2017). Just about money? CEO satisfaction and firm performance in small family firms. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 825–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavana, G., Gottardo, P., & Moisello, A. M. (2017). Earnings management and CSR disclosure. Family vs. non-family firms. Sustainability, 9(12), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerken, M., Hülsbeck, M., Ostermann, T., & Hack, A. (2022). Validating the FIBER scale to measure family firm heterogeneity–A replication study with extensions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(4), 100497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond Beliefs: Religions Bind Individuals into Moral Communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Puri, M. (2013). Managerial attitudes and corporate actions. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & 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-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia, L. R., Chirico, F., Martin, G., & Baù, M. (2022). Best among the worst or worst among the best? Socioemotional wealth and risk-performance returns for family and non-family firms under financial distress. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.c.5864762.v1

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO Hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegde, S. P., & Mishra, D. R. (2019). Married CEOs and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 226–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebl, M. R. (2013). Risk aversion in family firms: what do we really know? The Journal of Risk Finance, 14(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-)core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. (2012). Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1457–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsbeck, M., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019). The board value protection function in young, mature and family firms. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iguchi, H., Katayama, H., & Yamanoi, J. (2022). CEOs’ Religiosity and Corporate Green Initiatives. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 497–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaw, Y. L., & Lin, W. T. (2009). Corporate elite characteristics and firm’s internationalization: CEO-level and TMT-level roles. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 220–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, W., Eddleston, K., & Zellweger, T. (2012). Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1175–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy, N. D., Hack, A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2014). New product portfolio performance in family firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1065–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiczy, N. D., Hack, A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). What makes a family firm innovative? CEO risk-taking propensity and the organizational context of family firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 334–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Rehman, S. U., & García, F. J. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuttner, M., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Mitter, C. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in Austrian family firms: socioemotional wealth and stewardship insights from a qualitative approach. Journal of Family Business Management, 11(2), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lähdesmäki, M., Siltaoja, M., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Stakeholder salience for small businesses: A social proximity perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. (2018). The influence of family firms and institutional owners on corporate social responsibility performance. Business & Society, 57(7), 1374–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laspita, S., Breugst, N., Heblich, S., & Patzelt, H. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 414–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., Au, K. Y., He, A., & Song, L. (2015). Why Do Family-controlled Firms Donate to Charity? The Role of Intrafamily Succession Intention, Social Status, and Religiosity. Management and Organization Review, 11(4), 621–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-González, E., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Meca, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A contingency approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1044–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magrizos, S., Apospori, E., Carrigan, M., & Jones, R. (2021). Is CSR the panacea for SMEs? A study of socially responsible SMEs during economic crisis. European Management Journal, 39(2), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahto, R. V., Davis, P. S., Pearce, J. A., & Robinson Jr, R. B. (2010). Satisfaction with firm performance in family businesses. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(5), 985–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction. Journal of Financial Economics, 89(1), 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmendier, U., Tate, G., & Yan, J. (2011). Overconfidence and early-life experiences: The effect of managerial traits on corporate financial policies. Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1687–1733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Málovics, G., Csigéné, N. N., & Kraus, S. (2008). The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. M., Al-Sultan, K., & De Massis, A. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955122

  • Marques, P., Presas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The heterogeneity of family firms in CSR engagement: The role of values. Family Business Review, 27(3), 206–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten, C., Graafland, J., & Kaptein, M. (2014). Religiosity, CSR Attitudes, and CSR Behavior: An Empirical Study of Executives’ Religiosity and CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, S., Oliver, B., & Song, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and CEO confidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 75, 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. (2017). The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42, 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, O., & Schier, G. (2020). CSR and family CEO: The moderating role of CEO’s age. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business School Press. Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D., & Santangelo, G. D. (2018). Boundary spanners and intra-MNC knowledge sharing: The roles of controlled motivation and immediate organizational context. Global Strategy Journal, 8(2), 220–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miroshnychenko, I., De Massis, A., Barontini, R., & Testa, F. (2022). Family firms and environmental performance: A meta-analytic review. Family Business Review, 35(1), 68–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsma, S. V. (2007). Religion and Philanthropic Giving and Volunteering: Building Blocks for Civic Responsibility. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 3, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., Wood, T. & Wheatley, G. (1990). Students’ theories of mathematics and their mathematical knowledge: multiple dimensions of assessment. In G. Kulm (Hrsg.), Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Mathematics (S. 137-154). Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelster, M., Hofmann, A., Klocke, N., & Warkulat, S. (2023). Dark Triad Personality Traits and Selective Hedging. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04985-z

  • Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preslmayer, C., Kuttner, M., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). Uncovering the research field of corporate social responsibility in family firms: a citation analysis. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(2), 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quazi, A. M., & O’Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(3), 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2011). Prospect theory around the world. Discussion Paper 2011/19. Bergen: NHH Department of Finance and Management Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoar, A., & Zuo, L. (2011). Shaped by booms and busts: How the economy impacts CEO careers and management style. Working paper 17590. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17590

  • Schrand, C. M., & Zechman, S. L. C. (2012). Executive overconfidence and the slippery slope to financial misreporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53, 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia, S., Clinton, E., Nason, R. S., James, A. E., & Rivera-Algarin, J. O. (2013). Family communication and innovativeness in family firms. Family Relations, 62(3), 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serfling, M. A. (2014). CEO age and the riskiness of corporate policies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 25, 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, R. L., & Milbrandt, J. M. (2022). Family Social Capital in Family Business: A Faith-Based Values Theory. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05110-4

  • Spence, L. J. (2016). Small business social responsibility: Expanding core CSR theory. Business & Society, 55(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, S., Zhu, F., & Zhou, H. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review on Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms. Sustainability, 14(13), 7817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang Y, Mack DZ, & Chen G (2018). The differential effects of CEO narcissism and hubris on corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1370–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner, L. M., Berent-Braun, M. M., Jeurissen, R. J., & de Wit, G. (2012). Beyond size: Predicting engagement in environmental management practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, R. L., & Steel, B. S. (1999). Child rearing as a mechanism for social change: The relationship of child gender to parents’ commitment to gender equity. Gender & Society, 13(4), 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, C., Chen, F., Jones, P., & Xia, S. (2021). The effect of institutional investors’ distraction on firms’ corporate social responsibility engagement: evidence from China. Review of Managerial Science 15(6), 1645–1681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., & Ma, P. (2022). CEOs’ Poverty Experience and Corporate Social Responsibility: Are CEOs Who Have Experienced Poverty More Generous? Journal of Business Ethics, 180, 747–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A., Ding, H. B., & Chung, H. M. (2015). Corporate social responsibility performance in family and non-family firms: The perspective of socio-emotional wealth. Asian Business & Management, 14, 383–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, Z., Wu, Y., Zhu, Q., & Yang, S. (2018). Do female executives prioritize corporate social responsibility? Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(13), 2965–2981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Österreich

    Eva Wagner & Markus Dick

  2. Universität Bern, Bern, Schweiz

    Andreas Hack

Authors
  1. Eva Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Hack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Wagner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Angewandte Statistik, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Österreich

    Christine Duller

  2. Lehrstuhl für BWL, insbesondere Management Accounting and Control, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Deutschland

    Martin R. W. Hiebl

  3. Accounting & Financial Management am Department für Business & Tourism, Fachhochschule Salzburg, Puch/Salzburg, Österreich

    Michael Kuttner

  4. Institut für Controlling & Consulting, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Österreich

    Stefan Mayr

  5. Accounting & Financial Management am Department für Business & Tourism, Fachhochschule Salzburg, Puch/Salzburg, Österreich

    Christine Mitter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wagner, E., Dick, M., Hack, A. (2023). Familienunternehmen und CSR. In: Duller, C., R. W. Hiebl, M., Kuttner, M., Mayr, S., Mitter, C. (eds) Herausforderungen im Management von Familienunternehmen . Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41978-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41978-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-41977-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-41978-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation