Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

Christoph Stock; Laura Pütz; Sabrina Schell; Arndt Werner

doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05382-4

Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

Stock, Christoph; Pütz, Laura; Schell, Sabrina; Werner, Arndt 2024-02-01 00:00:00 This systematic literature review contributes to the increasing interest regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in family firms—a research field that has developed considerably in the last few years. It now provides the opportunity to take a holistic view on the relationship dynamics—i.e., drivers, activities, outcomes, and contextual influences—of family firms with CSR, thus enabling a more coherent organization of current research and a sounder understanding of the phenomenon. To conceptualize the research field, we analyzed 122 peer-reviewed articles published in highly ranked journals identifying the main issues examined. The results clearly show a lack of research regarding CSR outcomes in family firms. Although considered increasingly crucial in family firm research, a study investigating family outcomes (e.g., family community status, family emotional well-being), as opposed to firm outcomes, is missing. This literature review outlines the current state of research and contributes to the actual debate on CSR in family firms by discussing how family firms can use CSR activities as strategic management tools. Moreover, our analysis shows a black box indicating how CSR links different antecedents and outcomes. The black box is signic fi ant since r fi ms generally need to know where to allocate their scarce resources to generate the best outcomes. We identify nine research questions based on these findings, which we hope will inspire future research. Keywords Systematic Literature Review · Family Firms · Corporate Social Responsibility · Sustainable Family Business Theory · Antecedents · Outcomes Introduction than 90% (International Family Enterprise Research Acad- emy, 2003). Many family r fi ms have been operating success- Family firms are the most common form of business organi- fully for generations—some for more than a century (Ahmad zation in the world economy (La Porta et al., 1999; Rovelli et al., 2020; Koiranen, 2002; Lorandini, 2015). As a result, et al., 2022). Although the relative size of the family firm they not only contribute enormously to global economic sector differs from nation to nation, in most countries, at prosperity, are responsible for a large number of jobs (Solei- least 50% of the business population is made up of family manof et al., 2018) and innovation drivers (Calabrò et al., firms, and in some countries, e.g., Brazil, Italy, USA, more 2019) but also shape the values and behavior of national economies (Memili et al., 2015). Chua et al., (1999, p. 25) define a family firm as “a busi- * Arndt Werner ness governed and/or managed with the intention to shape [email protected] and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant Christoph Stock coalition controlled by members of the same family or a [email protected] small number of families in a manner that is potentially Laura Pütz sustainable across generations of the family or families.” [email protected] Reduced to its very core, a family firm forms a unity between Sabrina Schell the two subsystems, family and firm (Danes et al., 2008; [email protected] Frank et al., 2017; Stafford et al., 1999), meaning that with University of Siegen, Unteres Schloß 3, 57076 Siegen, growing overlap of both subsystems, the family and its fam- Germany ily members become increasingly linked to the company, and Institute for New Work, Bern University of Applied Sciences, vice versa (Izzo & Ciaburri, 2018; Rousseau et al., 2018). Brückenstrasse 73, 3005 Bern, Switzerland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 C. Stock et al. Since the relationship between family members and the of its supplier management (Kumar & Vaz, 2017). In this firm cannot be separated as easily as between non-family context, however, it is essential to note that the many good executives and the firm, the owning family influences the deeds of small and medium-sized family firms making firm’s operations, culture, and social behavior (Chrisman up the majority of the world’s business population stay et al., 2005; Daspit et al., 2021). Thus, family firm research unnoticed by the general public, as these firms tend not states that most owning families have a strong interest in to publicize their good deeds (see, e.g., Déniz & Suárez, ensuring that their firm not only does well financially but is 2005; Discua Cruz, 2020; Niehm et al., 2008; Peake et al., also perceived as valuable by society since the firm’s reputa- 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Given the severe social and tion is closely linked to that society (Giner & Ruiz, 2020; environmental problems our world faces, it is crucial to Handler, 1989; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011; Yanez-Araque understand what does or will motivate this group of firms et al., 2021). Therefore, research argues that family firms to engage in CSR. conduct corporate social responsibility (CSR)—meaning From the literature, we note that family firms imple- that they “[…] integrate social and environmental concerns menting CSR have significantly more benefits compared in their business operations and in their interaction with to non-family firms (e.g., Antheaume et al., 2013; Niehm their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission of et al., 2008; Panwar et al., 2014) and that family firms the European Communities, 2001, p. 6)—not only to build with a higher overlap of family and firm will conduct more a competitive advantage by building superior stakeholder CSR (e.g., Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010, 2014a; Uhlaner relationships (Bendell, 2022; Bingham et al., 2011; El- et al., 2004). Following this line of thought, we assume Kassar et al., 2018) but also to enhance the public image of that when the family and firm subsystems overlap, the the owning family which is closely related to the image of owning family will transfer family resources (e.g., finan- the firm (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Zientara, 2017). cial, human, or social capital) to the firm, which they— Although this also applies to other shareholder primacy rela- at least partially—will invest in CSR activities such as tionships, Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß (2018) found involving themselves in environmental concerns; provid- that CSR’s perceived value seems higher than average for ing improved working conditions; supporting non-profit family ownership. organizations; being involved in local community projects Block and Wagner (2014a) found in an analysis of the (Turker, 2009), thereby generating both firm and family S&P 500 that even large, publicly-listed companies with outcomes. a high proportion of family ownership are more likely to Research on CSR in family firms has increased signifi- adopt CSR than those with less family ownership. Even cantly over the last few years, and the related research field is family-owned firms that are not considered responsible growing (Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2018; Kuttner players, such as Walmart (Walton family) or Ford (Ford & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018; Mariani et al., 2021; Pres- family), try to give something back to society through lmayer et al., 2018). Due to the variety of studies, the oppor- foundations such as the Walton Family Foundation or the tunity has come to synthesize the current state of research Ford Foundation (Scott, 2009; Sutton, 1987)—admittedly, so that future research can depart from a common under- not necessarily through altruistic motives. The Sackler standing. We therefore intent to provide a holistic view of family—founders of Purdue Pharma and Mundipharma the research field’s peculiarities offers; i.e., specific drivers and accused of being responsible for the opioid epidemic (antecedents), activities, results (outcomes) and contextual in the USA, and cited in 1600 lawsuits—used reputation factors of CSR in family firms. Such a framework would laundering and donations to museums and universities to help better contextualize existing research and provide guid- try and redeem their name and un-tarnish their reputation ance for the further development of the research field. Con- (Ballantyne & Loeser, 2021). So, although family firms sequently, we pose the following research questions: are not necessarily more socially responsible or even ethi- cal than non-family firms, the research shows that if an (1) Which antecedents drive a family firm’s corporate owning family is involved in the business, compared to a social responsibility? non-family-owned firm, it will be more inclined to conduct (2) Which outcomes do family firms realize by conducting CSR for reputational reasons (García-Sánchez et al., 2021; corporate social responsibility? Palma et al., 2022; Seckin-Halac et al., 2021). Multina- (3) Which of the family firm’s corporate social responsibil- tional corporation conglomerates such as those of Rupert ity antecedents and outcomes correspond and are the Murdoch and the Koch brothers have caused irreparable resources used effectively to achieve the intended out- damage to the climate movement and use CSR to attempt comes? to green-wash their policies. Bosch, on the other hand, as a large, 100% family-owned firm, is considered a pre- dominantly socially responsible player, especially in terms 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… To study this phenomenon, we decided to examine, syn- identify subsequent lacunae. We then present an agenda for thesize, and systemize the growing body of research on fam- future research regarding CSR in family firms, deriving nine ily firms’ CSR activities identifying the CSR antecedents research questions using our SFBT-based theoretical frame- and outcomes in family firms. Following Tranfield et al. work. Finally, we discuss our findings and provide theoreti- (2003) systematic literature review approach, we analyzed cal and practical implications based on our results. 122 peer-reviewed research articles regarding CSR in fam- ily firms, applying our theoretical framework inspired by Stafford et al. (1999) Sustainable Family Business Theory Theoretical Framework (SFBT). The SFBT draws from the systems theory and a resource-based view assuming that the specific behavior of The SFBT draws from the systems theory and a resource- a family firm system emerges from the interaction of its sub- based view assuming that the specific behavior of a family systems (i.e., family and firm) and the associated resource firm system emerges from the interaction of its subsystems transaction between the two. Therefore, our theoretical (i.e., family and firm). This subsystem dynamic differentiates model builds on the existing research literature offering a family firms from non-family firms. The family subsystem critical analysis of family and firm antecedents and out- uses its resources to achieve its family-related goals, which comes of CSR and guidance for future research regarding can be subjective (e.g., emotional well-being) and objective the phenomenon’s essence. (e.g., financial well-being). The firm subsystem also uses Consequently, we contribute to a better understanding of its resources, independent of the family, to achieve its busi- CSR in family firms. Firstly, our literature analysis reveals ness goals (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 1999). Both a pattern showing that family resources integrated into the subsystems interact, enabling both firm and family to benefit firm through family influence increase the firm’s probability from each other’s resource base. of conducting CSR activities. Most researchers have found Although both are independent systems, the subsystems that family firms can use CSR as a strategic tool to obtain overlap in family firms (Frank et al., 2017). The extent of favorable outcomes (e.g., Adomako et al., 2019; Craig & this overlap between the family and firm systems varies: In Dibrell, 2006; Lamb et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2014; Zientara, family firms where the separation of family and firm is pre- 2017) illustrating that family influence within a firm should dominant, there is little overlap. Conversely, in family firms not necessarily be seen as a liability but as a strategic asset. where the overlap is high, the extent of the interface of the Secondly, the literature shows that current research often family and firm subsystems is significant (Bergamaschi & suffers from a misalignment between empirical research and Randerson, 2016). The more the two subsystems overlap, theory. The prevailing assumption is that family objectives the more likely the owning family will attempt to influence drive family firm CSR activities (Preslmayer et al., 2018), the firm’s management (Astrachan et al., 2020; Chadwick & thereby obtaining family and firm outcomes, whereas fam- Dawson, 2018; Chua et al., 1999; Kuttner et al., 2021; Meier ily firm CSR outcome-related studies only examine firm & Schier, 2021; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996; Sharma, 2004). outcomes, not family and firm outcomes. Although there is Most research is related to non-family firms (Miller & much theorizing about family outcomes playing a signic fi ant Le Breton-Miller, 2007). Non-family firms are not driven role in family firm management, we could not identify any by trans-generational orientation or socioemotional wealth empirically-related findings. (SEW), which makes them more flexible since they do not Thirdly, current research does not identify which family have to consider emotional or generational aspects in their firm antecedents are linked to which family firm outcomes strategies. SEW explains the emotional needs of an owning by which CSR activities. Our literature analysis reveals that family, such as identity, the ability to exercise family influ- family firms can benefit greatly from CSR by generating ence, and the perpetuation of the family dynasty (Gómez- both firm and family outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial for Mejía et al., 2007). Non-family firms are not bound to a family firms to understand how and where to allocate their particular management pool and can be driven by short-run resources to achieve optimal results. To clarify CSR’s cata- objectives, maximizing profits quarterly. Also, non-family lytic role in family firms and to enable family firms to deploy and publicly-listed firms may have a more ‘democratic’ own- their resources for appropriate CSR activities constructively, ership and are more visible (Blodgett et al., 2011; Cruz et al., we recommend that future research opens this black box and 2019; International Family Enterprise Research Academy, focuses on the particular CSR activities’ mediating effect on 2003; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2007). family firm antecedents and family firm outcomes. Most researchers have found that where CSR is con- The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: We cerned, family firms behave differently to non-family discuss our literature review’s theoretical framework and firms (Cabeza-García et al., 2017; Cuadrado-Ballesteros describe the method used to establish the review’s arti- et al., 2017; El Ghoul et al., 2016; Fehre & Weber, 2019; cle samples. We ascertain the current research status and Izzo & Ciaburri, 2018) showing that family firms conduct 1 3 C. Stock et al. more CSR activities than non-family firms (Faller and zu & Ruiz, 2020; Handler, 1989; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011; Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2018). The owning family provides Yanez-Araque et al., 2021). the firm with a particular set of family resources: financial, Family firms are usually trans-generationally oriented human, or social capital to pursue its personal goals within and, therefore, strive to preserve family or firm outcomes so the firm (Pütz et al., 2022; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013). the next generation may benefit (Bammens & Hünermund, Familiness describes the family resources integrated within 2020; Memili et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2018). By applying the the firm and is “the unique bundle of resources a particular SFBT (Stafford et al., 1999) to our research questions, we firm has because of the system interaction between the fam- created a conceptual framework (see Fig. 1 below) divid- ily, its individual members, and the business.” (Habbershon ing family firm CSR antecedents and outcomes into either & Williams, 1999, p. 11). Familiness is available regardless the family or the firm subsystem. While family antecedents of the market situation (Frank et al., 2017) and can enable emerge from the family subsystem, firm antecedents emerge a family firm to overcome internal and external disruptions from the firm subsystem. In terms of outcomes, the fam- (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 1999). ily subsystem profits from the family outcomes, while the Family firm research theorizes that family firms with firm subsystem profits from firm outcomes. The more the significant levels of familiness combined with the firms’ two subsystems overlap, the greater the interdependencies resources will be able to achieve increased performance between family and firm antecedents or outcomes. We also levels (Chrisman et al., 2005; Pütz et al., 2022; Weismeier- include a loopback from the family firm outcomes to the Sammer et al., 2013). The research literature shows that family firm antecedents since we believe that the outcomes family firms have higher CSR levels (e.g., Dyer & Whetten, from today can be the antecedents of tomorrow. 2006; Liu et al., 2017; Singal, 2014), and we propose that Following Elkington’s (1998) triple-bottom-line approach this phenomenon is mainly rooted in the familiness effect that states sustainable development must take place on a where family resources (i.e., financial, human, and social different dimension, we classify the applied CSR measures capital) are provided by the owning family (Danes et al., into environmental-, economic-, and societal-related CSR 2008; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013) for the benefit of the activities and postulate that the family resources provided firm and the family. The increased CSR levels are explained to the firm should lead to higher levels of CSR. The fam- through the image spillover effect. Owning families are often ily subsystem should also benefit through family outcomes. entrenched in their local communities and set great store Environmental-related CSR activities are those that aim to by their public image. CSR is a valued tool, particularly reduce or compensate for environmentally harmful behavior, by family-owned firms (Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, e.g., by fostering ecologically sustainable innovations, adapt- 2018), that facilitates image enhancement, thereby encour- ing green investment strategies, or adopting their behavior aging client loyalty and embedding the firm’s reputation, according to eco-certification standards (e.g., Bammens & consequently leading to increased financial success (Giner Hünermund, 2020; Dou et al., 2019; Miroshnychenko et al., Fig. 1 Theoretical Model 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 2022; Richards et al., 2017). Economic-related CSR activi- Moon, 2008; Van Marrewijk, 2013), we decided to apply ties favor stakeholders who directly relate to the company’s a wide range of keywords. The first group dealt with the value creation, e.g., employees, customers, or suppliers (e.g., identification of CSR-relevant research using: (CSR OR Bennedsen et al., 2019; Dangelico, 2017; Graafland, 2020; ‘corporate social responsibility’ OR ‘social responsibility’ Uhlaner et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2017). Societal-related OR ‘corporate responsibility’ OR ‘corporate social’ OR CSR includes generalized activities such as donations, atten- ‘corporate citizenship’ OR ‘environmental management’ tion to pressing community issues, or non-profit organization OR ‘sustainab*’ OR ‘social management’ OR ‘ethic’ OR support (e.g., Bhatnagar et al., 2020; Bingham et al., 2011; SDG OR ‘sustainable development goals’). The second Uhlaner et al., 2004). group concentrated on the relevant literature concerning CSR is a firm-level construct. Through these activities, family firms: (‘family firm*’ OR ‘family business*’ OR firms maintain or strengthen relationships with different ‘family enterprise*’ OR ‘family sme’ OR ‘family own*’ stakeholders, thereby increasing their competitive posi- OR ‘family-own*’ OR ‘family control*’ OR ‘family led’ tion (Stock et al., 2022; Wagner, 2010). However, due to OR ‘family involve*’ OR ‘family influence*’). the interdependence between family and firm, in the case of By screening all search results that included both a key- family-owned firms, both subsystems benefit from the posi- word from the CSR and the family firm keyword group in the tive effects CSR generates. title or abstract (current analysis covers published research The SFBT also theorizes that a family firm is more resil- up to June 30th, 2022), we identified 368 studies. We did ient to external disruptions due to the buffer that family not consider articles that included one term of both keyword resources can provide (Stafford et al., 1999). Researchers groups but did not deal with both categories explicitly or must also look at moderating contextual factors outside the implicitly, as was the case with studies dealing with CSR family r fi m system to understand the heterogeneous n fi dings (or one of its synonyms) using family firms for the analy - better. For example, when CSR is essential for stakehold- sis without addressing their particularities. Studies dealing ers (e.g., valued by customers, society, or industry regula- with the ethical values in family firms, but not their impact tions), the family firm may be more incentivized to invest on CSR activities or related concepts, were also excluded. its resources in CSR activities (e.g., Baù et al., 2021; Chen After this initial screening, we excluded all articles in jour- & Liu, 2022; Samara et al., 2018). In CSR research, such nals that were not ranked as ‘2 or better’ by the Association factors are often understood as directly affecting CSR activi- of Business Schools’ (2021) Academic Journal Guide. By ties (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Our SFBT-based theoreti- doing this, 122 articles remained a final sample for further cal model includes contextual factors as exogenous drivers, in-depth analysis. Two authors read all papers independently while family and firm antecedents form endogenous drivers. and extracted information regarding author(s), year, title, In a family firm-specific context, we consider that more or journal, research method, applied theory, geographic scope, fewer resources from the family or firm subsystem are allo- and critical variables using a data-extraction sheet. To better cated to CSR activities due to the pressure emerging from understand the articles within our sample, we also looked the context in which the family firm operates. up the number of citations per paper using google.scholar. The 122 articles were then categorized by whether the key variables analyzed were CSR antecedents or outcomes Methodology of family firms or both CSR antecedents and outcomes. Articles that examined the effect of family firm-specifics To answer our research questions, we applied the Tran- on CSR were classified into ‘antecedents,’ while articles field et al. (2003) methodology, which uses three phases classified into the ‘outcome’ category examined how fam - (i.e., planning, conducting, and reporting) to systemati- ily firm-specifics affect CSR’s effects. First, we subdivided cally review and collect significant scientific contribu- antecedents and outcomes into a family and a firm’s sub- tions in a specific research area. We developed a detailed categories, as suggested by the SFBT. The SFBT indicates search strategy and search protocol for English articles that integrating family and firm resources helps encounter in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We then carried internal and external disruptions (Danes et al., 2008; Staf- out the pre-defined search in the following databases: ford et al., 1999). Consequently, we created a subcategory (1) EBSCO Business Source Elite; (2) Elsevier Science with contextual factors affecting a firm’s longevity, including Direct; (3) Emerald; (4) Springer Link; (5) Wiley Online stakeholder pressure and community embeddedness. Two Library; and (6) ISI Web of Science. We searched these authors discussed and iteratively organized all subdivisions databases using a combination (AND conjunction) of two during the analysis process. Two subsequent authors were keyword groups. Due to the nascent stage of CSR in fam- consulted when a disagreement occurred, and all authors ily firm research (Kuttner et al., 2021) and the wide range discussed categorization extensively until a consensus was of synonyms regarding CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008; Matten & found. 1 3 C. Stock et al. of the citations, followed by Entrepreneurship Theory Current Research Status and Practice with 18.81% and Family Business Review with 13.10%. Drawing on the Academic Journal Guide Article Characteristics (Association of Business Schools, 2021) to evaluate the journal quality (‘4’ being the highest score and ‘2’ the The 122 reviewed articles were published in 52 journals, lowest), 12.30% of the reviewed articles appeared in jour- mainly on general management, ethics, gender, and social nals ranked as ‘4’, 57.38% were ranked as ‘3’, and 30.32% responsibility. It is noteworthy that the journal with the ranked as ‘2’ (see Table 1). most significant number of publications is the Journal of The density of publications on CSR in family firms has Business Ethics, which is responsible for 18.85% of all increased significantly in the last ten years (see Fig. 2). One publications in our review. We identified 15 journals, each reason might be that CSR research, in general, became more publishing at least two articles relevant to our research attractive since the global financial crisis of 2007/2008, field. These 15 journals account for 51.64% of all reviewed when corporate entities’ mismanagement and irresponsi- articles. The remaining 36 journals published one article ble behavior were discovered and made public (Blodgett each, accounting for 29.51% of all reviewed articles. Our et al., 2011). This crisis necessitated a major social reas- citation analysis shows similar results. First, the 122 arti- sessment and overhaul of business practices in financial cles have a general citation count of 15,952. Once again, and corporate institutions (Crane et al., 2013). Due to their the Journal of Business Ethics stands out, covering 20.44% Table 1 Most Influential Journals No. Journal Title AJG Ranking Number of Publications Number of Citations 1 Journal of Business Ethics 3 23 (18.85%) 3261 (20.44%) 2 Business Strategy and the Environment 3 13 (10.66%) 803 (5.03%) 3 Family Business Review 3 10 (8.20%) 2089 (13.10%) 4 Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 6 (4.92%) 451 (2.83%) 5 Journal of Cleaner Production 2 6 (4,92%) 210 (1.32%) 6 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 4 5 (4.10%) 3001 (18.81%) 7 Journal of Business Research 3 3 (2.46%) 326 (2.04%) 8 Asia Pacific Journal of Management 3 3 (2.46%) 152 (0.95%) 9 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 2 3 (2.46%) 405 (2.54%) 10 International Journal of Research in Marketing 4 2 (1.64%) 247 (1.55%) Total 74 (60.66%) 10945 (68.61%) Fig. 2 Annual Distribution of the 122 Reviewed Published Articles 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… trans-generational orientation (Giner & Ruiz, 2020; Lump- (e.g., Dawson et al., 2020; Peake et al., 2017) as there is kin & Brigham, 2011), family firms have been discussed as a little publicly available data on SMEs (Miller & Le Breton- counter-model to opportunistic, shareholder-value-oriented, Miller, 2007). Qualitative methods were used for induc- non-family firm management (Blodgett et al., 2011), which tive exploration of new research issues and theories, e.g., could explain increased research activities regarding CSR semi-structured interviews using case study methodology antecedents in family firms. Although it is still a signifi - (see Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Bhatnagar et al., 2020; cantly under-researched area, the debate about CSR’s fam- Marques et al., 2014). ily firm outcomes has become more popular (Kuttner & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018). The relatively lower research Theories in Use output since 2021 could be explained by focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, given the significant In sum, we found 96 different applied theories, giving the social and environmental problems our world faces, our impression that the research field’s theoretical foundation research field’s growth will likely continue (see, e.g., Le is fragmented. However, most theories played only a minor Breton-Miller & Miller, 2022). Researchers want to examine role within our sample. When analyzing the applied theories’ how family firms differ from non-family firms (Adams et al., underlying assumptions, we noted four theories appearing at 1996; Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Maung et al., 2020) least once in 52 papers: The Principal Agency Theory, SEW, and what both types of firms can learn from these differ - Stakeholder Theory, and Institutional Theory (see Table 3). ences (Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b; 30 studies combine those by drawing from different assump- Samara & Arenas, 2017). tions to explain a family firm’s CSR activities. When looking at reviewed article’s research methods (see In CSR-related family firm research, the Principal Agency Table 2), quantitative research stands out. When analyzing Theory states that the stronger the control of the owning large firms, quantitative research mainly draws from longitu- family (through ownership shares or management), the dinal databases such as the Thomson Reuters databases (e.g., more successfully the owning family will impose its own El Ghoul et al., 2016; Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2017, 2018), goals on the firm (e.g., Block, 2010; López-González et al., KLD data (e.g., Block & Wagner, 2014a, 2014b; Kim et al., 2019; Sahasranamam et al., 2020; Wiklund, 2006). In this 2017; Lamb & Butler, 2018; Liu et al., 2017), annual reports regard, twenty-four articles drew on the Principal Agency (e.g., Biswas et al., 2019; Sundarasen et al., 2016; Zamir Theory, focusing on conflicts in the relationship between the & Saeed, 2020) and S&P 500 firms (e.g., Cui et al., 2018; principal (mainly the owning family) and the agent (mainly Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b; Wagner, 2010). Quantitative non-family managers), characterized by information asym- studies examining family-owned small and medium-sized metry between the two, where the agent has an information enterprises (SMEs) draw from cross-sectional surveyed data advantage against the principal. The unequal distribution Table 2 Research Method Used Antecedent-related Antecedent- and Outcome-related Total Outcome-related Quantitative 81 (66.39%) 14 (11.48%) 9 (7.38%) 104 (85.25%) Qualitative 10 (8.20%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 11 (9.02%) Conceptual 5 (4.10%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 7 (5.74%) Total 96 (78.69%) 16 (13.11%) 10 (8.20%) 122 (100.00%) Table 3 Theories Theory Representative Studies Principal Agency Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), Block (2010), Cui et al. (2018), El Ghoul et al. (2016), Labelle et al. (2018), Seckin- Theory Halac et al. (2021), Wiklund (2006) Socioemotional Wealth Cruz et al. (2014), Dick et al. (2021), Graafland (2020), Lamb & Butler (2018), Samara et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018), Zientara (2017) Stakeholder Theory Ahmad et al. (2020), Bendell (2022), Bingham et al. (2011), Maggioni & Santangelo (2017), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Uhlaner et al. (2004) Institutional Theory Agostino & Ruberto (2021), Bammens & Hünermund (2020), Campopiano & De Massis (2015), Du et al. (2016), Ge & Micelotta (2019), Kim et al. (2017), Singal (2014) N = 122 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. of information among these groups leads to the possibility more recent studies tend towards being theory-driven, indi- that the agent may not act in the principal’s best interest cating that the understanding of family firms has advanced. and behaves opportunistically for personal gain (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976). Content Findings The Institutional Theory was referred to in eighteen arti- cles and focused on how firms must adapt to a different envi- Family Firm Antecedents ronment to gain legitimacy while conducting their business (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Du et al., 2016; Zamir & In total, 96 of all articles in our sample (78.69%) dealt exclu- Saeed, 2020). Since firms ostensibly adapt their behavior to sively with the antecedent angle of CSR in family firms, the rules of the institutional norms and routines of broader while 16 (14.95%) dealt with both antecedents and outcomes society, the Institutional Theory is used to explain social simultaneously showing the predominance of antecedent- behavior in different contexts (e.g., Du et al., 2016; Ge & related focus of the field of CSR in family firms. Micelotta, 2019; Singal, 2014). Family firm-related CSR When the first articles addressing family antecedents research uses this theory mainly to examine how specific (see Adams et al., 1996; Graafland et al., 2003; Gallo, 2004; antecedents affect CSR under different contextual factors Uhlaner et al., 2004) were published, it was implicitly theo- (e.g., Agostino & Ruberto, 2021; Du et al., 2016; Kim et al., rized that family resources (i.e., family social capital toward 2017). For example, the location of a company’s industry stakeholders) are antecedents of CSR activities (Uhlaner influences how family ownership or management affects et al., 2004). Subsequent publications applied different CSR (Chen & Cheng, 2020). The same applies to cultural exercises to identify family antecedents of CSR, with family contexts (Samara et al., 2018). ownership being the most prominent measure (see Table 4). SEW was applied in twenty-one articles and used as a The research reveals that most studies use family owner- theoretical concept. The first article in our sample using SEW ship (e.g., Bammens & Hünermund, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; was published in 2014, and this concept has gained popular- Rees & Rodionova, 2015; Terlaak et al., 2018) followed by ity ever since (Swab et al., 2020). SEW focuses on the fam- family management (e.g., Block, 2010; Cui et al., 2018; Oh ily’s affective and non-financial goals, such as strengthening et al., 2019) or a combination of both (e.g., Craig & Dibrell, the family image and maintaining control over the own firm 2006; Dangelico, 2017; Kim & Lee, 2018) for examining (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Labelle et al., 2018; Marques the effect of family antecedents on CSR in family firms. et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2015). Therefore, the most dominant Although there is a moderate tendency towards a positive argument among studies influenced by SEW is that the own- effect, no apparent effect on CSR activities can be found; ing family wants to protect its family image and therefore this could be because these measures alone are insufficient engages in CSR to improve that image and look good to to influence firm decisions, as the owning family cannot stakeholders (e.g., Dick et al., 2021; Labelle et al., 2018; adequately influence internal decision-making processes by Ma et al., 2022; Madden et al., 2020; Nadeem et al., 2020). their mere presence (Terlaak et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021). As The Stakeholder Theory was used in thirteen articles and suspected, the operational measures do not sufficiently reflect is one of the fundamental and dominant theories of gen- the overlap between family and company (Chua et al., 1999). eral CSR research (Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017; Freeman Although SEW covers the influence of the owning family et al., 2010). This theory explains why family firms are much better than research using family ownership and man- stakeholder-focused and, therefore, conduct more CSR than agement, it similarly shows heterogeneous results regarding non-family firms (Bingham et al., 2011; Delmas & Gergaud, CSR (e.g., Arena & Michelon, 2018; Dayan et al., 2019; 2014) and is attributed to the presence of an owning fam- Kariyapperuma & Collins, 2021; Zientara, 2017). Even ily. Reasons for this include, for example, inter-generational though the probability that SEW emerges increases with thinking and higher awareness of stakeholder pressure com- the overlapping of the subsystems family and firm (Berrone pared to non-family firms (Cruz et al., 2014; Delmas & Ger - et al., 2010), it does not have a resource-increasing char- gaud, 2014). Additionally, CSR-related family firm research acter per se, which can be directed to conduct more CSR. assumes that owner families use their firms to pursue finan- Therefore, CSR only partially supports SEW-related goals, cial and non-financial family goals and are more inclined to which also explains the heterogeneous results of the other engage in CSR towards their stakeholders to achieve these studies (e.g., Cruz et al., 2014; Dick et al., 2021; Zientara, goals (Bingham et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2014). 2017). For example, SEW causes family firms to engage in There is a contemporary trend proposing a combination CSR with external stakeholders more often than non-family of the four prevailing theories (e.g., García-Sánchez et al., firms in order to generate a positive image spillover effect 2021; López-González et al., 2019; Sahasranamam et al., for the owning family, but less to engage in CSR with inter- 2020; Seckin-Halac et al., 2021), although, notably, approxi- nal stakeholders, as the owning family is afraid of losing mately 30% of the articles used no theories at all. However, 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Table 4 Family Antecedents Family Antecedents Effect on CSR Representative Studies Family-firm status 6 2 (33.33%) Positive Gallo (2004), Palma et al. (2022) 1 (16.66%) Negative Dekker & Hasso (2016) 3 (50.00%) Indistinct Adams et al. (1996), Déniz & Suárez (2005), Graafland et al. (2003) Family ownership 47 27 (57.45%) Positive Bammens & Hünermund (2020), Kim et al. (2020), Sahasranamam et al. (2020) 16 (34.04%) Negative Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), El Ghoul et al. (2016), Ma et al. (2022) 4 (8.51%) Indistinct Bergamaschi & Randerson (2016), Labelle et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018) Family management 22 13 (59.09%) Positive Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), López-González et al. (2019), Palma et al. (2022) 6 (27.27%) Negative Block & Wagner (2014a), Graafland (2020), Oh et al. (2019) 3 (13.64%) Indistinct Berrone et al. (2010), Cui et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018) Family ownership and man- 23 agement 12 (52.17%) Positive Chen & Liu (2022), Dangelico (2017), Liu et al. (2017) 4 (17.39%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Chen & Cheng (2020), Craig & Dibrell (2006) 7 (30.44%) Indistinct Doluca et al. (2018), Fritz et al. (2021), Kim & Lee (2018) Socioemotional wealth 6 3 (50.00%) Positive Dayan et al. (2019), Kallmuenzer et al. (2018), Kariyapperuma & Collins (2021) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 3 (50.00%) Indistinct Arena & Michelon (2018), Le Breton-Miller & Miller (2016), Zientara (2017) Family generation 12 10 (83.33%) Positive Dawson et al. (2020), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Uhlaner et al. (2004) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 2 (16.66%) Indistinct Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019), Richards et al. (2017) Family values 13 12 (92.31%) Positive Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019), Marques et al. (2014), Sánchez-Medina & Díaz- Pichardo (2017) 1 (7.69%) Negative Zheng et al. (2017) 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – Family firm name 4 4 (100.00%) Positive Bingham et al. (2011); Kashmiri & Mahajan (2014a); Uhlaner et al. (2004) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – N = 112 antecedent-related articles control over their own company by making concessions to, has the same name as the owning family and leads to an e.g., employees (Cruz et al., 2014). overall positive effect on CSR (e.g., Kashmiri & Mahajan, In line with our theoretical assumption, research using the 2010, 2014a; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Thus, more sophisticated family generation measure (e.g., Dawson et al., 2020; Del- degrees of family influence, such as family generation, fam- mas & Gergaud, 2014; Uhlaner et al., 2004) and family value ily values, and the family firm name, tend to be associated measures (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Marques with a strong interrelation of family and firm subsystem. et al., 2014; Sánchez-Medina & Díaz-Pichardo, 2017), Since a family firm consists not only of a family subsys- which are better at capturing the overlap between family and tem but also of a firm subsystem, research studies examined firm, show predominantly positive effects on CSR. These the influence of general firm antecedents on CSR activi- studies argue that as the control of the owning family gets ties in our sample (see Table 5). These studies answer how stronger on day-to-day operations, so does the opportunity firm antecedents interact with family antecedents regarding to influence internal business decisions (Sharma & Sharma, CSR. They focus mainly on (internal) non-financial anteced- 2011; Uhlaner et al., 2012). Probably the most significant ents predominantly showing the effect on CSR and exam- overlap between family and firm is shown when the firm ine the effect of governance (e.g., Campopiano et al., 2014; 1 3 C. Stock et al. Table 5 Firm Antecedents Firm Antecedents Effect on CSR Representative Studies Financial 2 2 (100.00%) Positive Block (2010), Singal (2014) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – Non-financial (internal) 28 24 (85.72%) Positive Biswas et al. (2019), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2017, 2018); Seckin-Halac et al. (2021) 2 (7.14%) Negative Graafland (2020), Madden et al. (2020) 2 (7.14%) Indistinct Kim & Lee (2018), Samara et al. (2018) Non-financial (external) 4 3 (75.00%) Positive Du (2015), Ge & Micelotta (2019), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2018) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 1 (25.00%) Indistinct Richards et al. (2017) N = 112 antecedent-related articles El-Kassar et al., 2018; Terlaak et al., 2018) and non-family studies found that family firms generate better results from management (e.g., Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2017; Oh et al., CSR activities than non-family firms (see Table 6), indi- 2019; Samara et al., 2018) on family firms’ CSR activities. cating that family firms, in general, are better at utilizing With only two studies examining the effect of financial ante- CSR (e.g., Antheaume et al., 2013; Niehm et al., 2008; cedents, it is apparent that further research is still needed. O’Boyle et al., 2010; Panwar et al., 2014). Most studies show how family firms improve their Family Firm Outcomes financial outcomes through, among others, the cost of capital (Wu et al., 2014) or return on new products (Kash- Ten studies within our sample (8.20%) examined the out- miri & Mahajan, 2014a), but mainly focus on the firm’s come side of CSR exclusively, while 16 (13.11%) dealt general performance (e.g., Adomako et al., 2019; Choi with both antecedents and outcomes simultaneously, et al., 2019; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b). Family firms showing the predominance of antecedent-related focus of can also improve their internal non-financial outcomes CSR in family firms. Remarkably, most outcome-related (Ahmad et al., 2020), such as longevity (Antheaume Table 6 Firm Outcomes Firm Outcomes Effect of CSR Representative Studies Financial 17 10 (56.25%) Positive Ahmad et al. (2020), Niehm et al. (2008), Pan et al. (2018) 2 (12.50%) Negative Choi et al. (2019), Lin et al. (2020) 5 (31.25%) Indistinct Dangelico (2017), Doluca et al. (2018), Liu et al. (2017) Non-financial (internal) 7 6 (85.71%) Positive Antheaume et al. (2013), Craig & Dibrell (2006), Wagner (2010) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 1 (14.29%) Indistinct Doluca et al. (2018) Non-financial (external) 7 4 (57.14%) Positive Ahmad et al. (2020), Samara & Arenas (2017), Sekerci et al. (2022) 2 (28.57%) Negative Hsueh (2018), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2018) 1 (14.29%) Indistinct Zientara (2017) N = 26 outcome-related articles 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… et al., 2013; Samara & Arenas, 2017) or innovation per- family outcomes, even though the importance of family out- formance (Biscotti et al., 2018; Craig & Dibrell, 2006; comes was referred to in the reviewed literature (e.g., Cam- Wagner, 2010) and in external non-financial areas such as popiano & De Massis, 2015; Niehm et al., 2008; Zientara, firm reputation (Samara & Arenas, 2017; Zientara, 2017), 2017). Déniz and Suárez (2005) note how owning families credibility (Hsueh, 2018; Panwar et al., 2014), or customer are personally affected by the relationships with stakeholders orientation (Ahmad et al., 2020). since they are inseparable from it. Furthermore, the findings The research literature determines two main reasons fam- of Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019) conclude that the own- ily firms generate augmented outcomes through CSR. The ing family derives honors from socially responsible behav- signaling effect associated with family firm status prompts ior and, therefore, could act as a basis for family outcome- external non-financial outcomes (e.g., Martínez-Ferrero related CSR research. et al., 2018; Maung et al., 2020; Sekerci et al., 2022), and the familiness dynamic, which allows family firms to translate Contextual Factors CSR into positive financial and internal non-financial out- comes (e.g., Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Pan et al., 2018; Wag- A fundamental assumption of studies analyzing family firms ner, 2010). The signaling effect means external stakeholders is that owning families are more sensitive to external contex- are less likely to perceive the family firm’s CSR activities tual factors than other non-family owners, thus leading to a as opportunistic green-washing, particularly in the case of greater tendency to implement the requirements of external SMEs where the owning family is evident (e.g., Ahmad stakeholders (Ge & Micelotta, 2019). The owning family et al., 2020; Dangelico, 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2010) but also assigns greater importance to the r fi m’s image, as the family with large, publicly listed family firms (e.g., Biscotti et al., identifies with the firm (e.g., Amidjaya & Widagdo, 2020; 2018; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014a; Wu et al., 2014). Discua Cruz, 2020; Labelle et al., 2018; Zientara, 2017). If The familiness stream of literature is not concerned with the firm carries the family name, the family and the firm’s whether family firms engage in more or less CSR than non- reputation become inseparable, and maintaining or acquiring family firms but with the extent to which family firms can a good reputation is paramount (e.g., Abeysekera & Fer- better translate CSR activities into positive outcomes (e.g., nando, 2020; Bammens & Hünermund, 2020; Kashmiri & Wagner, 2010). Family firms have the advantage of asserting Mahajan, 2010; Pan et al., 2018; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Fol- more influence on the operational management and increas - lowing this argumentation, an owning family will be more ing control over the firm’s subsystem (Doluca et al., 2018; willing to provide resources to the family firm system for Niehm et al., 2008). Both streams utilize the transgenera- CSR activities intended for brand enhancement and expected tional aspect particular to family firms that ensures their from the firm by external stakeholders. strategies and aims have long-term focus leads them to use The research literature analysis revealed that contextual CSR to maximize positive outcomes for the owning family factors could be divided into general stakeholder pressure and the firm (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Niehm and community embeddedness. While public stakeholder et al., 2008; Zientara, 2017). pressure can be abstract communication from an anonymous We did not find research providing practical informa- group (e.g., industry) resulting in a generic response (e.g., tion on whether CSR-improved stakeholder relations affect via CSR reports) (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015), Table 7 Contextual Factors Contextual Factors Effect on CSR Representative Studies Stakeholder pressure 26 18 (69.23%) Positive Maggioni & Santangelo (2017), Yu et al. (2021), Zamir & Saeed (2020) 1 (3.85%) Negative López-González et al. (2019) 7 (26.92%) Indistinct Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al. (2015), Dayan et al. (2019), Le Breton-Miller & Miller (2016) Community embeddedness 10 10 (100.00%) Positive Baù et al. (2021), Dekker & Hasso (2016), Peake et al. (2017) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – N = 35 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. family firms with community embeddedness are more The reason Western cultures incorporate CSR more involved and use CSR to respond to the needs or require- than their Asian counterparts can be attributed to the dif- ments of the community (e.g., Niehm et al., 2008; Peake ference in cultural and political aims and values. Western et al., 2017). Table 7 shows we found 26 studies covering countries tend to be highly stakeholder-oriented, and the general stakeholder pressure and ten explicitly covering the values are based on “liberal democratic rights, justice, and impact of family community embeddedness on a family societal structures” (Amann et al., 2012, p. 331), leading firm’s CSR activities (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 2010; Laguir to more significant institutional pressure for firms to com- et al., 2016; Peake et al., 2017). ply accordingly (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Dekker It is noteworthy that the relevance of public stakeholder & Hasso, 2016). Asian countries have a more shareholder- pressure (e.g., industry norms, national culture) is more oriented culture. Therefore, there is less social pressure to pronounced in studies analyzing large firms (e.g., Blodgett become CSR-compliant (El Ghoul et al., 2016), and the et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2014; Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al., owning families tend to focus more on their personal finan- 2015). Studies on SMEs tend towards community embed- cial well-being, subsequently regarding CSR as relatively dedness (e.g., Dekker & Hasso, 2016; Kallmuenzer et al., inconsequential (e.g., Biswas et al., 2019; Du, 2015; Du 2018; Peake et al., 2017). The community embeddedness et al., 2016; Muttakin & Khan, 2014). Family firms form perspective shifts the focus away from general stakeholder the backbone of the Asian economy, with family owner- groups and examines the owning family’s interpersonal ties ship being the most dominant ownership form of compa- within the local community. The latter research argues that nies in the Asia Pacific region (El Ghoul et al., 2016). Of family-owned SMEs use CSR as a strategic tool to influ- the largest 500 largest global family firms ranked by rev - ence external stakeholders’ perception (i.e., local commu- enue, over 20% are Asia-based, with combined revenue of nity) positively to closer relationships between them (Lamb almost $2 trillion (Global Family Business Index, 2021). et al., 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2012). Interestingly, all studies Although it is not required by law for Asian companies to unanimously agree that family firms react with more CSR be CSR compliant, there is a trend towards encouraging towards pressure from contextual factors. more CSR from companies to entice foreign investment. Although most studies show the positive effect of external Foreign investors from Western countries and companies pressure on a firm to conduct CSR activities, this is country are encouraged by their external stakeholders to provide and region-dependent (Ertuna et al., 2019; Ge & Micelotta, ethically and ecologically sourced products, and therefore 2019; Labelle et al., 2018; Zamir & Saeed, 2020). The first the investors and companies will require CSR from the studies with US American datasets were conducted between Asian company they are importing from or collaborating 2003 and 2013. The economic relevance of Asia has recently with (Cordeiro et al., 2018; Du et al., 2018; Muttakin & increased, engendering an increase in CSR-related family Khan, 2014). firm studies and applying Asian datasets since 2009 (see In India, for example, many local family firms are volun - Table 8). While studies using US American data mainly tarily socially responsible (Bhatnagar et al., 2020; Sahasran- recorded positive ee ff cts of family antecedents on CSR (e.g., amam et al., 2020). They aim at better working conditions Cordeiro et al., 2020; Lamb & Butler, 2018; McGuire et al., for employees, for example, and are involved in improving 2012; Panwar et al., 2014), Asian studies have frequently the local community; e.g., the Godrej Group preferred to shown the contrary (Biswas et al., 2019; El Ghoul et al., protect mangroves on its land in Mumbai, despite the insa- 2016; Huang et al., 2009; Muttakin & Khan, 2014). tiable demand for housing development. Jardine Mathe- son, a Fortune 500 and Hong Kong-based multinational Table 8 Research-originating countries Before 2001 2001–2005 2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Since 2021 Total International 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (1.64%) 11 (9.02%) 6 (4.92%) 20 (16.39%) USA 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 9 (7.38%) 11 (9.02%) 11 (9.02%) 1 (0.82%) 33 (27.05%) Central-America 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) Australia 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 2 (1.64%) Europe 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) 0 (0.00%) 6 (4.92%) 13 (10.66%) 4 (3.28%) 26 (21.31%) Asia 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 5 (4.10%) 22 (18.03%) 2 (1.64%) 30 (24.59%) Africa 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) Conceptual 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 4 (3.28%) 0 (0.00%) 7 (5.74%) Total 1 (0.82%) 4 (3.28%) 11 (9.02%) 25 (20.49%) 66 (54.10%) 15 (12.30%) 122 (100.00%) 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… conglomerate controlled by the Keswick family has pledged Looking at different family and firm subsystem antecedents its commitment to biodiversity and is implementing sustain- and outcomes through the lens of individual CSR activities ability strategies in its many operating companies. The com- gives us a balanced perspective. None of the CSR activities pany has a proactive approach and collaborates with public focus on specific antecedents or outcomes, and there are no stakeholders on climate issues, ecological sustainability, and significant differences in the effects between the activities. forest protection aiming to mitigate any adverse impact from We conclude that the related CSR activities have not yet its operations and products (Jardine Matheson, 2021). been sufficiently differentiated in family firm research, and From the research literature, we conclude that it is not the disproportionately large number of articles that do not only essential to understand the effects of different organi- distinguish between different CSR activities supports this zational settings (i.e., family and firm subsystem) on CSR view. (Dahlsrud, 2008) but also the effects of external contextual and cultural factors that influence the internal processes of a family firm when considering CSR as a driver. Future Directions of Research Figure 3 recapitulates the scope and robustness of the find- Corporate Social Responsibility Activities ings in our data sample. In terms of scope, the literature shows that most CSR-related family firm research focuses We examined which CSR activities were used in our study on CSR antecedents, and only a few studies are concerned samples and how their antecedents and outcomes dif- with outcomes. On the antecedent side, research mainly fered. According to Elkington’s (1998) triple-bottom-line focuses on the direct effect of family antecedents on CSR approach, we classified the applied CSR measures into envi- or the interaction with firm antecedents and its effect on ronmental-, economic-, and societal-related CSR activities CSR. However, such research examining the interaction of (see Table 9). family and firm antecedents on CSR is in the minority. The Twenty-nine articles were allocated to environmen- research clearly shows a lack of analysis on CSR outcomes tal-related CSR (23.77%), 21 to economic-related CSR in family firms, and in terms of firm outcomes, family firms (17.21%), and thirteen articles to societal-related CSR achieve more through CSR than non-family firms. Although (10.66%). Furthermore, we found that in 59 articles there is increasing emphasis on family firm research, the (48.36%), the majority of research is based on CSR meas- study of family outcomes (e.g., family community status, ures that do not differentiate between different activities but family emotional well-being) is lacking. Moreover, the average different activities in one measure (e.g., Gallo, 2004; catalytic role of CSR activities has not yet been studied in Hsueh, 2018; Iyer & Lulseged, 2013; McGuire et al., 2012). detail, where the fundamental question of which antecedents Table 9 Corporate Social Responsibility Activities in Family Firms CSR Activities Effect in Family Firms Representative Studies Aggregated CSR 59 37 (62.71%) Positive Fitzgerald et al. (2010), Gallo (2004), Memili et al. (2020) 12 (35.59%) Negative Biswas et al. (2019), Hsueh (2018), Muttakin & Khan (2014) 10 (16.95%) Indistinct Bergamaschi & Randerson (2016), Iyer & Lulseged (2013), Zientara (2017) Environmental-related CSR 29 17 (58.62%) Positive Block & Wagner (2014b), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Terlaak et al. (2018) 6 (20.69%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Dekker & Hasso (2016), Nadeem et al. (2020) 6 (20.69%) Indistinct Adomako et al. (2019), Kim & Lee (2018), Doluca et al. (2018) Economic-related CSR 21 14 (66.66%) Positive Cruz et al. (2019), Kashmiri & Mahajan (2014a), López-González et al. (2019) 4 (19.05%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Nadeem et al. (2020), Zheng et al. (2017) 3 (14.29%) Indistinct Campopiano & De Massis (2015), Cruz et al. (2014), Fritz et al. (2021) Societal-related CSR 13 10 (76.92%) Positive Bingham et al. (2011), Niehm et al. (2008), Sahasranamam et al. (2020) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 3 (23.08%) Indistinct Amann et al. (2012), Kim & Lee (2018), Block & Wagner (2014b) N = 122 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. Fig. 3 Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of CSR in Family Firms and outcomes are linked by which CSR activities remain family outcomes. Furthermore, the research literature cannot unanswered. provide robust findings on how contextual factors affect the In terms of robustness, it is evident that the more sub- outcome side of CSR in family firms. stantial the interrelation between family and firm (see, e.g., To gain further insight, we propose nine research ques- family generation, family values, and the family firm name), tions for future exploration to open the ‘black boxes’ and the higher the probability that a family firm will conduct consequently lead to clarifying significant aspects concern- CSR. Although the research field is mainly antecedent-ori- ing family firm CSR activities (see Table 10). ented, the literature shows that the effect of family on firm Family firm research traditionally focuses on examining antecedents remains unexplored. On the outcome side, CSR family antecedents and only marginally includes firm ante- predominantly has robust effects on firm outcomes. Con- cedents in their models. Family and firm antecedents’ effects sidering that an empirical examination of family outcomes on CSR are mainly examined independently. Research shows is missing, it is unclear how CSR and firm outcomes affect that family involvement (identification and commitment) and Table 10 Research Questions Research question 1a Which firm antecedents (i.e., firm resources) affect the association between family antecedents (i.e., family resources) and CSR activities? Research question 1b Which conflicts can arise during the resource transaction between family and firm subsystem, and how does this affect CSR activities? Research question 2 Which family outcomes (i.e., family resources) can an owning family generate through the CSR activities of its firm, and how do those affect the family firm’s CSR activities in subsequent periods? Research question 3a Which firm outcomes (i.e., firm resources) affect the association between CSR activities and family outcomes (i.e., fam- ily resources)? Research question 3b Which conflicts can arise during the resource transaction between family and firm subsystem, and how does this affect the family firm’s CSR outcomes? Research question 4 Which contextual factors affect the relationship between CSR activities and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes) of family firms? Research Question 5a Which CSR activities (e.g., environmental, economic, or societal-related) are linked to which antecedents (i.e., family and firm antecedents) and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes)? Research question 5b How and why do CSR activities affect antecedents and outcomes of family firms? Research question 6 How and why do CSR activities increase the longevity of family firms? 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… family values have a positive effect on CSR activities but do Family firm research mainly concentrates on examining not examine the extent to which family and firm antecedents CSR’s antecedent angle. Previous findings dealt with the interact with each other (e.g., Marques et al., 2014; Peake financial and non-financial firm outcomes while only theo- et al., 2017; Sharma & Sharma, 2011; Uhlaner et al., 2012). rizing about family outcomes without empirically studying Following our SFBT-based theoretical framework, we them. However, more and more studies have recently scru- know that the higher the influence of the owning fam- tinized CSR outcomes in family firms (e.g., Hsueh, 2018; ily within its firm, the greater the interaction between Lin et al., 2020; Sekerci et al., 2022). The empirical scrutiny family and firm, and the more resources can be trans- on CSR family outcomes is logical, considering CSR is a ferred between both (Stafford et al., 1999). When family firm-level construct. resources are transferred to the firm subsystem, familiness It is, however, an assumption of the SFBT-based theo- is generated, providing the family firm with a more exten- retical framework that while family and firm share their sive resource base, ultimately leading to a competitive resources to some extent, the family and the firm pursue advantage in the long term (Frank et al., 2017; Habbershon their specific goals separately (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford & Williams, 1999; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013). These et al., 1999). Thus, Campopiano and De Massis (2015) state theoretical assumptions are implicitly applied, explaining that owning families can profit from the image-enhancing that owning families involved within the firm introduces effect of CSR themselves through an increased family image. responsible behavior, which stakeholders will eventually Furthermore, Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019) conclude that repay (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Fitzgerald family honorableness is one of the outcomes of a family et al., 2010; Fritz et al., 2021). According to research, the firm’s CSR activities, indicating that CSR generates family family’s social capital is a crucial driver of a family firm’s outcomes. However, which family outcomes can be gener- CSR activities and competitiveness (e.g., Niehm et al., ated through CSR has not yet been examined. Consequently, 2008; Peake et al., 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2004). we recommend exploratory (i.e., qualitative) work in this Unexamined is the permeability of the two subsystem area to determine which family outcomes an owning family boundaries and how those affect the effectiveness of the may achieve through CSR. resource transaction. Utilizing the system’s theoretical per- The literature indicates that if CSR activities do not bring spective, we theorize that the subsystem’s boundary perme- positive results for the owning family, they will probably ability can differ (Frank et al., 2017). Depending on how cease to provide resources for CSR implementation (Palma strong the subsystem boundaries are, the impact of family et al., 2022). Taking a closer look at the implicit assump- antecedents (i.e., family resources) can be more or less effec- tions made by the reviewed studies on family outcomes (e.g., tive on firm antecedents (i.e., firm resources). If the subsys- family harmony, family well-being), we find indications that tem permeability is low, resources can easily be transferred a family firm’s CSR could also have an impact on the own- from one subsystem to another, while such a transaction will ing family itself (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; be more difficult when the permeability of the subsystem’s Niehm et al., 2008; Zientara, 2017). The family and the boundaries is high (Danes et al., 2008; Hernes & Bakken, firm are overlapping subsystems that mutually affect each 2003). However, this permeability can change, e.g., if the other, so the question remains which family outcomes (e.g., non-family management wants to preserve power within the family harmony, family well-being) may be achieved. Fol- firm subsystem and tries to hamper the integration of fam- lowing Jaskiewicz and Dyer (2017), we ask to what extent ily resources, meaning that the potentially positive effect of these family outcomes act in subsequent phases as family family resources (i.e., familiness) would not be achieved. antecedents. Thus, although we found that future family firm research should focus on the outcome angle of CSR, we believe that Research Question 2: Which family outcomes (i.e., fam- the antecedent’s research angle should also be developed. In ily resources) can an owning family generate through the this regard, we also propose to examine which factors could CSR activities of its firm, and how do those affect the hamper the transfer of family and firm subsystem resources family firm’s CSR activities in subsequent periods? between the subsystems and whether this could affect the family firm’s CSR activities. Although family outcomes were not explicitly examined, the research literature implicitly indicates that CSR-related Research Question 1a: Which firm antecedents (i.e., firm family outcomes are generated through the use of firm out- resources) affect the association between family anteced- comes (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Campopiano ents (i.e., family resources) and CSR activities? & De Massis, 2015; Déniz and Suárez, 2005; Niehm et al., Research Question 1b: Which conflicts can arise during 2008; Zientara, 2017). It is a fundamental assumption of the resource transaction between family and firm subsys- our SFBT-based theoretical framework that resources can be tem, and how does this affect CSR activities? exchanged between family and firm as soon as the overlap of 1 3 C. Stock et al. both subsystems is significant enough (Danes et al., 2008; embeddedness increase the likelihood that family firms will Stafford et al., 1999), meaning the family firm has a unique engage in CSR (Ge & Micelotta, 2019). The greater the pres- resource base since it can draw from the owning family’s sure from contextual factors to engage in CSR, the more resources. Since the resource transaction between the two likely family firms are to mobilize their family resources for subsystems can also be performed from firm to family, this the firm (e.g., Berrone et al., 2010; Maggioni & Santangelo, implies that the owning family can also benefit from the 2017; Zamir & Saeed, 2020). firm’s financial and non-financial outcomes of CSR. Research shows that this pressure varies significantly However, as in the case of the antecedents, it is also nec- from region to region (Ertuna et al., 2019; Labelle et al., essary to consider where outcomes are concerned, that a 2018). While it tends to be high in the USA and Europe, it subsystem’s boundary permeability can hinder the resource tends to be low in Asian countries (Welford, 2007). How- transfer effectiveness. For example, some studies exam- ever, the economic relevance of the Asian continent has ine the extent to which majority shareholders withdraw increased, and the economic relationships between Asian resources from a company at the expense of minority share- countries and the Western world have become more relevant. holders (Welford, 2007). This so-called ‘tunneling’ disad- Muttakin and Khan (2014) found that many Asian firms vantages minority shareholders, who, due to their limited now use CSR to signal to foreign investors that they have influence, cannot protect themselves against majority share- more governance structures than other regional competitors holders (Dal Maso et al., 2020; Sahasranamam et al., 2020). (Cordeiro et al., 2018). Therefore, Asian family firms can Therefore, the potential for the transfer of firm resources use their family resources to enhance CSR and use it as a (primarily financial or social capital) could lead to the firm strategic tool to signal trustworthiness to Western investors subsystem decreasing its permeability to hamper resource (Du et al., 2018). flow to the family subsystem. Contextual factors could affect the relationship between Although we propose putting greater emphasis on firm CSR activities and their outcomes. For example, different outcomes, we also propose that outcomes-related CSR countries and communities may have different expectations research should include how family outcomes are affected of the owning family regarding CSR. Family firms could by CSR. For example, it could be examined whether an respond more effectively towards those expectations when increase in the firm’s performance through CSR also leads expanding since they have a more significant resource base to an increase in the family’s well-being. Another sugges- because of family resources. Therefore, we encourage future tion would be to examine whether a firm image, improved research to look for and examine contextual factors affecting through CSR, leads to more social capital for the owning the outcomes of CSR in family firms. family. In this regard, we also propose examining the extent to which conflicts occur between family and firm and to Research Question 4: Which contextual factors affect the what extent this process influences the generation of family relationship between CSR activities and outcomes (i.e., outcomes. family and firm outcomes) of family firms? Research Question 3a: Which firm outcomes (i.e., firm A crucial connection not yet addressed by current resources) affect the association between CSR activities research involves CSR antecedents and defining which ante- and family outcomes (i.e., family resources)? cedents lead to which outcomes, also which CSR activi- Research Question 3b: Which conflicts can arise during ties link those antecedents and outcomes. Whether the firm the resource transaction between family and firm sub- antecedents lead to firm outcomes or there are crossover system, and how does this affect the family firm’s CSR connections due to the overlap of family and r fi m, so that, for outcomes? example, firm antecedents generate family outcomes remains to be established. The effectiveness between family and firm According to our SFBT-based theoretical framework, antecedents is also an angle that should be considered. family and firm resources are used to overcome internal Therefore, it is necessary to consider which, how, and and external disruptions. Research has found that fam- why CSR activities link antecedents and outcomes. Labelle ily firms are more sensitive to external contextual factors et al. (2018) theorize that economic and non-economic goals (Uhlaner et al., 2004) and more adaptive to them due to drive a family firm’s CSR activities. They argue that the their unique set of resources. Research concerning CSR higher the proportion of family ownership, the more likely antecedents shows that stakeholder pressure and community the firm’s business activities align with achieving economic 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… goals. Since they attribute a non-economic effect to CSR, the motivation of the firm’s stakeholders to interact (Bing- they argue and deduce that more CSR is conducted in firms ham et al., 2011), helping to facilitate the social network with lesser family ownership, and fewer CSR activities are transfer from the predecessor to the successor (Aragón- conducted in firms with increased family ownership. Inter - Amonarriz et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2018; Schell et al., estingly, Terlaak et al. (2018) theorize and empirically find 2020). Thus, CSR is a strategic instrument that increases the opposite by arguing that family firms place a higher the firm’s legitimacy (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011), conse- emphasis on non-economic goals when family ownership quently increasing the probability of a successful genera- within the firm increases. tional handover (Pan et al., 2018). Thus, since many family firms have scarce resources Accordingly, CSR could help a family firm preserve and must use them efficiently to survive (Ward, 1997), it its resource base during the handover of the firm, thus is vital to understand which CSR activities will help them contributing to the longevity of the firm as this is one of achieve the best results. Following Stafford et al. (1999) the most crucial issues of family firm research. Research SFBT, a division of family and firm could help clarify empirically proving this assumption would create a busi- these issues. Case studies could be used to identify rela- ness case for CSR in family firms. Therefore, this assump- tionships or disagreements between antecedents and out- tion must be addressed in future research. comes. Their results could be checked quantitatively after- ward using panel surveys to analyze the long-term effect Research Question 6: How and why do CSR activities of the measures. In future research, this black box must be increase the longevity of family firms? opened to prove which CSR activities help achieve which goals and whether family resources can help achieve those. Synthesis Research Question 5a: Which CSR activities (e.g., envi- ronmental, economic, or societal-related) are linked to Discussion which antecedents (i.e., family and firm antecedents) and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes)? This systematic literature review has revealed that CSR is Research Question 5b: How and why do CSR activities still a relatively young phenomenon in family firm research link antecedents and outcomes of family firms? but is becoming increasingly relevant. This review was guided by three research questions focusing on a family A central goal of family firms is to ensure that the firm firm’s CSR antecedents and outcomes and their interac- can continue to provide a basis for the family’s existence tion. Using Stafford et al.’s (1999) SFBT to build our and even for later generations. While a handful of family theoretical framework, we examined the CSR antecedents firms achieve this goal, others do not (Koiranen, 2002 ). and outcomes of a family firm not only from a firm but Among the outcome-related studies, Antheaume et al. also from a family’s perspective. We contribute to the lit- (2013) found that CSR is a factor that positively influences erature by summarizing and integrating our findings in the longevity of family firms, indicating that CSR helps an over-arching framework, emphasizing family and firm family firms succeed over generations. In line with our antecedents, outcomes, and contextual factors. Thus, we SFBT-based theoretical framework, we found that substan- uncover the current research focus on family firms’ CSR tial family influence leads to a greater propensity of CSR antecedents and outcomes (see Fig. 3) and show which in family firms, which we trace back to family resources research questions need to be addressed in the future (see integrated within the family firm’s resource base. Those Table 10). Our framework helps researchers to organize help the family firm to respond more effectively to internal the existing research (e.g., Mariani et al., 2021) for a better and external disruptions and thus also to generate better understanding of this phenomenon and to address future outcomes out of CSR. problems and questions. In this regard, our review con- In this context, Pan et al. (2018) is particularly notewor- tributes to the further development of the research field. thy since they find that CSR positively affects the family Our review of the research literature shows that firm’s post-succession performance. They theorize that to although CSR is a firm-level construct, CSR decision- take over successfully, successors of the owning family making is not exclusively tied to the firm but also to the need to win the support of internal and external stake- family subsystem and the family resources it provides holders, which they can do by conducting CSR (Bammens (Dimov, 2017; Jang & Danes, 2013). The research litera- & Hünermund, 2020; Pan et al., 2018). Signaling good ture provides evidence that increased CSR is implemented intentions to their stakeholders through CSR will increase when the owning family strongly influences the family 1 3 C. Stock et al. firm. Consequently, the use of family resources (i.e., for family-owned SMEs, which have considerably fewer familiness) to conduct CSR activities is more pronounced resources available than their larger competitors. in smaller firms as it is more likely that an owning family In general, Jaskiewicz et al. (2017) called for a more will exert its influence in smaller firms than in larger ones robust integration of family science into this research area (Danes & Brewton, 2012). From an SFBT point of view, to better integrate the family as an organizational actor this is the case since the owning family directs more fam- into management research. Family science uses knowl- ily firm resources towards CSR activities from which it edge coming “from various disciplines such as psychol- benefits doubly—firstly by the firm outcomes and secondly ogy, sociology, and education” (Jaskiewicz et al., 2017, by the family outcomes. Thus, while not necessarily being p. 309) and, therefore, could provide new theoretical and more ethical than other firm owners, owning families are empirical insights for the explanation of CSR’s family inclined to use resources provided by the family subsystem outcomes. Since it can be assumed that family firms to conduct CSR on the firm level. do not conduct CSR purely out of altruism but also to Also, according to SFBT, as family influence increases, achieve specific outcomes (Zientara, 2017), this area family firms engage in CSR to cultivate their relation- of research offers many opportunities for future family ships with their stakeholders (Fitzgerald et al., 2010; firm-related studies. Furthermore, a holistic theoretical Stafford et al., 1999), and thereby generate positive firm framework such as Stafford et al.’s (1999) SFBT that con- outcomes and longevity for the family firm by leveraging siders the unity of family and firm as well as a permanent resources (Kuttner & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018). As exchange of resources could be beneficial. This theory in the case of the antecedents-related studies, we con- assumes that the resources are transferred between the sequently also examined the outcomes-related studies family and the firm subsystem depending on the extent from a family and firm perspective. Concerning studies of the subsystems’ overlap (Danes et al., 2008; Fitzgerald examining the firm outcomes of CSR in family firms, we et al., 2010). By identifying the underlying reasons for the found that the research focuses strongly on non-financial interaction between family and firm, it might be possible outcomes, whereas financial outcomes have rarely been to better explain a family firm’s CSR behavior. researched. Regarding firm outcomes, we recommend that future research assign a higher priority to CSR’s financial Practical Implications firm outcomes. Family outcomes relating to the needs and goals of the owning family (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; The literature shows that family firms do indeed engage in Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017; Jaskiewicz et al., 2017) have more CSR. However, as the Waltons, Fords, Murdochs, and not yet been analyzed at all, which is surprising, as the Sacklers of this world show, they do not necessarily do so subsystems family and firm form a unit, and accordingly because they are more ethical than non-family firms but the outcomes should have a reciprocal influence (Staf- rather because they achieve positive results for the family ford et al., 1999). Further research could pinpoint which and the firm by doing so. Therefore, we must bear in mind family-related goals (Chrisman et al., 2010; Kotlar & De that family firms are run according to business principles Massis, 2013) family firms can achieve through CSR. and consequently conduct CSR for the benefit of the family While our literature review has shown that fam- and the firm, and not necessarily for the benefit of society. ily influence increases the likelihood of CSR activities If the lobby against unethical practices; child labor; slave within family firms, consequently increasing the prob- labor; pollution; animal cruelty, for example, did not exist, ability of achieving improved firm outcomes, we could would the chemical company continue to pollute the riv- not answer how CSR links both categories. Thus, the ers, or the sweatshop stop using child labor? These are rhe- question concerning the catalytic role of CSR remains a torical questions but show CSR’s potential for improving black box. Since family firms need to know which ante- the state of the world, on the one hand, and its limitations cedents can help them achieve their goals (i.e., family simultaneously. and firm outcomes) through CSR activities, this question Although we know that family firms use CSR activities, needs to be answered. Family firms must invest the opti- not for altruistic reasons but to benefit personally through mum set of family and firm resources into CSR activi- family and firm outcomes, we should not forget the positive ties, knowing that those investments will give them the aspects of those activities for society. Given the severe social strategic advantage they need; this is especially important and environmental problems the world faces, it is crucial to 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… motivate owning families to spend more resources on CSR Quantitative empirical approaches dominate research activities helping to avoid or overcome those problems and activities on CSR in family firms. To develop family firm- compensate for any damages incurred while conducting their specific explanatory approaches for the influence of the fam- business. Thus, lobbies and regulating authorities, be they ily on firm antecedents and the function of translation from local or governmental, should consider how to encourage drivers to outcomes and the emerging dynamics, we encour- companies—family-owned or not—to behave with CSR and age subsequent research to draw more on qualitative empiri- pursue ways and means to not only enhance their business, cal research in the form of case studies and experiments reputations, and profits but to behave in an ethical, sustain- for example (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014; Lude & Prügl, able manner at the same time. 2021). In particular, as research in family-owned SMEs is Since the analysis of the research literature shows that still under-represented (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2007), family firms are more sensitive to contextual factors than this approach should be conducted within family-owned non-family firms, more regulations for CSR activities can SMEs. Research in the field of large companies cannot be generate positive effects for society as a whole and for the transferred one-to-one to SMEs (Faller and zu Knyphausen- family firm itself. In particular, CSR activities directly Aufseß, 2018; Uhlaner et al., 2012), as the involvement and related to business (i.e., economic-related CSR) can ben- integration of the family are different (Miller & Le Breton- efit the firm. Whether a family firm or non-family firm and Miller, 2007), leading to a different use of resources as well regardless of the positive effect of family influence and the as goals (Block & Wagner, 2014b; Niehm et al., 2008). motivation behind conducting the CSR activities, our study Qualitative empirical research could help fathom the under- shows and research literature agrees that conducting CSR is lying motivations of family firms concerning CSR outcomes. a wise and far-sighted move for a company and a functional We also propose that such research focus more on the role of strategic tool a company can use to engender long-term the owning family and its members. Research considering profitability. this could break down the current barriers of the research field and develop it further. Limitations Following Tranfield et al.’s (2003) systematic litera- Conclusion ture review approach has helped us to expand the field of research, even if also accompanied by certain limitations. We postulate that research on CSR outcomes is necessary to When using a selection of databases, there is the possibility evaluate the effectiveness of family and firm antecedents. It that not all relevant papers have been considered. However, can also provide further insight into the unity of the family this limitation is counterbalanced partly by the detailed data- and the firm, especially its use of resources to achieve spe- base description, making the analysis more comprehensible. cic fi goals. These results lead to a better understanding of the Despite our systematic approach to searching and analyz- heterogeneity of family firms. Likewise, in future research, ing relevant publications, subjectivity cannot be entirely these approaches can be applied to non-family firms since, excluded. Nonetheless, this subjectivity has also helped us here, managers have a connection to the firms and can help to identify lacuna and proffer essential questions, which we determine the firm’s success through their use of resources hope will open up future research on CSR in family firms. such as social and human capital, which in turn enhances Also, we limited our literature search specifically to family their reputation. With this literature review, we want to moti- firms. It is possible that there is research in the field of fam- vate researchers to continue looking at CSR from different ily science that further explores the effects between family perspectives. and firm, as well as CSR activities, and that this review has not considered. Additionally, our chosen theoretical frame- work may impact the analysis and evaluation of the articles Appendix 1 consulted. Accordingly, we clarified our basis of interpreta- tion by explaining the theory and the underlying mechanism See Tables 11, 12, 13. in detail. 1 3 C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 Content Analysis of Family Firm Specific Corporate Social Responsibility Antecedents Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Abeysekera and Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 232 firms L USA Family ownership and manage- Fernando (2020) family manage- (9 year ment are negatively related to ment; founder panel) CSR strength. If the family firm name is named after the founder, this positively moderates the effect between family ownership and CSR concerns. During the financial crisis, family firms were associated with a lower CSR strength than non-family firms Adams et al. (1996) Family-firm status – – Qualitative 444 firms – USA Few differences exist in ethics- (cross-sec- related behavior between family tional) firms and non-family firms. Non-family firms, unlike family firms, have formal codes of ethics. Family firms pass on their ethical views informally through the corporate culture. Differences in ethical behavior arise from the company type Agostino & Ruberto Family ownership; – SEW, Stewardship Quantitative – – International This study provides evidence (2021) stakeholder pres- theory, Institu- (Interconti- on the positive relationship sure tional theory nental) between family firms and environment-friendly practices, also highlighting the positive moderating role of regulatory pressure Amann et al. (2012) Family ownership – – Quantitative 200 firms – Japan CSR ratings in terms of human and management (cross-sec- resource management and (combined) tional) environmental protection are higher for non-family firms than for family firms and there is no significant relationship between family firms/non-family firms regarding of CSR ratings of governance and social contribu- tion Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Amidjaya & Wid- Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 31 firms – Indonesia Family ownership, foreign owner- agdo, 2020 (also moderator); Institutional (5 year ship and corporate govern- foreign ownership theory panel) ance have a positive effect on (also moderator) sustainability reporting. Family and corporate ownership weakens the effect of governance corporate governance, foreign ownership has no moderating effect on corporate governance Aragón-Amonarriz Family social – – Qualitative 3 firms (13 S M Mexico In order to maintain responsi- et al. (2019) capital; family interviews) ble family ownership across commitment; fam- generations, family firms must ily values preserve their family social capital, consisting of a cogni- tive, structural, and relational dimension Arena and Michelon Family values; fam- – SEW Quantitative 167 firms – Italy High levels of the family control (2018) ily control; family and influence lead to lower identity; firm age environmental disclosure com- pared to non-family firms, with the effect weakening over the life cycle. Middle-aged family firms with high family identity provide more environmental disclosure, for example to protect and enhance the reputa- tion and image of the business, whereas old family firms with high family identity provide less environmental disclosure Bammens and Family ownership – Institutional theory Quantitative 4009 firms S M L Germany Family ownership has a positive Hünermund (mediated by com- (cross-sec- effect on the introduction of (2020) pany reputation tional) eco-innovations, partly due to motive); fam- the focus on the company repu- ily values and tation (mediator). This effect transgenerational is highest when the family has intention (modera- transgenerational intentions tor family owner- ship-reputation) C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Baù et al. (2021) Internationalization; – – Conceptual – – – This editorial of the special issue local roots on ‘Locality and Internation- alization of Family Firms’ discusses how family firms can build bridges between com- munities increasingly drifting apart. By bridging local and global environments, family firms can contribute to the sustainable development of the society Bendell (2022 family ownership – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 121 firms – USA The study’s results demonstrate and management; that family firms who were governmental highly engaged with their pressure; industry peers were significantly less pressure influenced by the possibility of negative peer reputation repercussions when making environmental innovation investment decisions compared with other firms Bennedsen et al. Family management – – Quantitative 2600 firms S M L Denmark Company characteristics, such (2019) (5 year as its policy/environment and panel) incentives and corporate culture have a strong influence on employee absenteeism. Like- wise, employee selection has a small influence on absenteeism. Overall, family firms have lower employee absenteeism Bergamaschi and Family ownership – – Theoretical – – – A family firm can be divided into Randerson (2016) the three subsystems fam- ily; ownership; and business. Depending on which subsystem is the dominant one, the family firm will follow different CSR patterns Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Berrone et al. (2010) Family ownership; – – Quantitative 194 firms – USA Family firms have a better family control (4 year environmental performance to panel) protect their SEW compared to non-family firms. This is particularly the case at the local level. This effect is independent of whether the family member serves as CEO, or CEO and board chair Bhatnagar et al. Family values; fam- – SEW, Agency Qualitative 14 firms (24 – India The Hindu beliefs of Dharma (2020) ily religion theory interviews) (duty to society) and Karma (right to act without expecting rewards) influence CSR-related philanthropy of family firms Bingham et al. Family involvement; – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 706 firms L USA Family firms demonstrate (2011) founder involve- Organizational (15 year more CSP social initiatives ment identity theory panel) than non-family firms, This effect becomes even greater with increasing family and/or founder involvement Biswas et al. (2019) Family ownership; – – Quantitative (16 year panel) – Bangladesh The relationship between corpo- corporate govern- rate governance guidelines and ance (mediator) CSR reporting is mediated by the quality of corporate govern- ance. Since family firms have a lower quality of corporate gov- ernance, they also have lower levels of CSR reporting Block (2010) Family ownership; – Social identity Quantitative 414 firms L USA Family firms downsize less than family manage- theory, Agency (9 year non-family firms. The decisive ment theory panel) factor is whether the company is family-owned or family-man- aged, as the positive effect can only be demonstrated in family- owned companies. Compared to non-family firms, family firms only downsize when this is necessary to protect their employees, and thus act more socially responsibly than non- family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Block and Wagner Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 399 firms L USA Family ownership as well as (2014a) family manage- (9 year founder ownership reduces CSR ment panel) concerns, whereby founder ownership has a stronger influ- ence. Family management, as well as founder management, increases CSR concerns. In this case, family management has the stronger effect Block and Wagner Family ownership – – Quantitative 286 firms L USA Family ownership has a positive (2014b) (11 year effect on diversity-, employee-, panel) environmental-, and product- related aspects of CSR perfor- mance and a negative impact on community-related CSR. The latter is a consequence of the owner family supporting the community through private rather than business channels Blodgett et al. Family values; ethi- – – Quantitative 172 firms – International Comparing mission statements, (2011) cal values (cross-sec- (Interconti- U.S. family firms have more tional) nental) ethical values than international family firms and non-family firms in the U.S.. U.S. family firms focus on “integrity” and “honesty”, while international family firms focus on “envi- ronmentalism”, “globalism”, and “CSR”. An increase in the ethical values of family firms around the world has occurred over time Cabeza-García et al. Family owner- – SEW Quantitative 105 firms L Spain Family firms have a lower com- (2017) ship; governance; (7 year mitment to CSR reporting foreign ownership panel) than non-family firms. With (moderator) regard to the second-largest shareholder, foreign ownership moderates this effect negatively, while the presence of a second family even increases this effect Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Campopiano et al. Family ownership; – Stewardship theory Quantitative 130 firms S M Italy Family ownership has a positive (2014) family manage- (cross-sec- effect on the company’s philan- ment tional) thropic involvement, while fam- ily involvement in management has a negative effect. Family owners invest more in their business to build reputation and be a better steward in the com- munity to support the longevity of the business Campopiano and De Family owner- Institutional theory, Qualitative 98 firms M L Italy Through CSR, family firms try to Massis (2015) ship and family Grounded theory (cross-sec- positively enhance their reputa- management; tional) tion. For this reason, they are institutional set- less influenced by institutional ting; community settings and focus more on the embeddedness expected social outcomes of CSR. Since they focus CSR less on institutional requirements and more on the interests of the stakeholders to be influenced, the variance of their CSR reports is higher Campopiano et al. Family management – Self-construal Quantitative 63 family firms L International Female members on the board (2019) theory (cross-sec- (Interconti- of family businesses exert a tional) nental) positive influence on CSR if they are not family members of the controlling family. In contrast, they only have a posi- tive influence on philanthropic engagement if they are family members of the controlling family Chen and Cheng Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative (4-year panel) L Taiwan Public family firms acquire CSR (2020) and/or manage- Neo-institutional assurances less frequently than ment (combined); theory non-family firms. This relation- mimetic pressure ship is positively moderated by from industry mimetic pressure from industry (moderator) peers C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Chen and Liu (2022) family ownership – SEW Quantitative 58 papers – International The study’s findings show and management; (meta-anal- (Interconti- evidence of greater CSP among culture type (mod- ysis) nental) family firms compared to erator) non-family firms. The family firm–CSP relationship was moderated by cultural values such as ingroup collectivism, humane orientation and future orientation, and the moderating effects depended on cultural tightness Cordeiro et al. Family ownership – Neo-Institutional Quantitative 500 firms L India Family ownership and multina- (2018) Theory (4 year tional ownership have a positive panel) impact on a firm’s CSR rating. State ownership, on the other hand, leads to a decline in CSR ratings Cordeiro et al. Board gender diver- – SEW, Agency Quantitative 751 firms L USA Board gender diversity is posi- (2020) sity; family owner- theory, Resource (6 year tively associated with corporate ship (moderator) dependency panel) environmental performance. theory This relationship is positively moderated by family ownership, but also by being a dual-class firm Cruz et al. (2014) Family ownership – Organizational Quantitative 598 firms L International Family firms conduct more CSR and management identity theory, (4 year (Europe) towards external stakehold- (combined); SEW, Stakeholder panel) ers, less CSR towards internal national CSR theory stakeholders, and are at the standards (mod- same time less sensitive to eration); industry national CSR standards or those CSR standards of their industry (modera- (moderation); tion). Family firms place their declining perfor- corporate survival above their mance (modera- SEW and their CSR activities tion) are therefore more sensitive to declining performance than those of non-family firms (moderation) Cruz et al. (2019) Family manage- – – Quantitative 152 firms L USA Women in boards of family ment; non -family/ (5 year firms affect CSP positively. family female panel) This effect can be observed for directors outside non-family and inside family women directors Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Cuadrado-Balles- Independent direc- – – Quantitative 575 firms – International Due to a higher proportion of teros et al. (2015) tors; family owner- (7 year (Interconti- independent directors in a ship (moderator) panel) nental) firm’s board, a firm discloses more CSR. Owning families, on the other hand, use their position to influence independ- ent directors to make fewer CSR disclosures. Thus, family ownership negatively moderates this relationship Cuadrado-Balles- Family ownership; – – Quantitative 547 firms – International Due to less formalization, family teros et al. (2017) formal code of (9 year (Interconti- firms tend to use less formal ethics panel) nental) codes of ethics than non-family firms, which mediates the nega- tive relationship between family ownership and CSP Cui et al. (2018) Family ownership; – Behavioral agency Quantitative 177 firms L USA Family management positively family manage- theory (8 year moderates the positive effect ment (moderator); panel) of family ownership on the long-term incen- CSR performance. Family and tive compensation non-family CEOs are incentiv- (moderator) ized to increase CSR through long-term incentive compensa- tion (moderation), although the effect is lower for family CEOs than for non-family CEOs Dal Maso et al. Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 4932 firms – International Listed family firms have lower (2020) human resource (14 year (Interconti- environmental performance practices (media- panel) nental) than non-family firms. The tor) study shows that this negative effect is mediated by a lower investment in employee training and development practices. This is due to a stronger bargaining power of the dominant coalition and a lower firm performance. Due to less investment in train- ing and development Dawson et al. (2020) Family manage- – Signaling theory, Quantitative 161 family S M Italy Business legality increases with ment; family Ability perspec- firms (2 year the level of family involvement generation tive, Willingness panel) in management. Likewise, the perspective level of generation has a posi- tive influence C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Dayan et al. (2019) Family values; – Mindfulness theory Quantitative 150 firms – United Arab Mindfulness in protection the firms capabilities (cross-sec- Emirates SEW dimensions “identifica- (mediator) tional) tion of family members with the firm” and “binding social ties” influences the environ- mental strategy of family firms. They have a positive effect on production of sustainable prod- ucts and processes. This effect is positively mediated by the capabilities of the company Dekker and Hasso Family-firm status; – – Quantitative 1452 firms S M Australia Private family firms have a lower (2016) social embedded- (longitudinal) environmental orientation than ness (moderator) non-family firms. By contrast, when family firms are strongly embedded in the social commu- nity, they exhibit a higher level of environmental orientation Delmas and Ger- Family values (heir – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 281 firms – USA Using wineries as examples, it gaud (2014) succession inten- (cross-sec- is shown that the intention to tion; moderator of tional) pass on the family business to quality motivation, the next generation has a posi- market motivation, tive effect on the adoption of and eco-certifica- eco-certificates. In this context, tion) passing on the business moder- ates the effect of market motiva- tion and quality motivation on eco-certification positives Déniz and Suárez Family value – – Quantitative 112 firms S M Spain Depending on the owning fam- (2005) (2 year ily’s values, family firms tend to panel) adopt a classic, socio-economic, or philanthropic approach to CSR. Most family firms in the sample followed a philanthropic approach, through which they tried to maintain broad relation- ships with society Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Dick et al. (2021) family ownership – SEW Quantitative 343 (cross- M Poland This study demonstrates that and management; sectional) founder-controlled family overconfidence firms show low levels of CSR (moderator) engagement. Moreover, over- confident executives in these firms tend to exhibit superior CSR performance Dou et al. (2019) Family ownership; – Strategic reference Quantitative 454 family – China In family-owned businesses, family commit- point theory, firms (cross- commitment and long-term ment (moderator); Organizational section) orientation is needed to imple- long term orienta- identity theory, ment a proactive environmental tion (mediator) SEW strategy. In family-owned businesses, commitment and long-term orientation is needed to implement a proactive environmental strategy. The mediation effect of long-term orientation is only significant if the level of family commitment is high Discua Cruz (2020) Family values; fam- – Stewardship theory, Qualitative 1 firm (inter - M Honduras In line with their family values ily religion Paradox theory views) and religion, the owning family of Honduran firm AsphaCo frequently engaged in CSR activities towards the com- munity and employees. Since they did not engage in CSR to better represent their firm, they preferred to keep it anonym and not report it publicly Du (2015) Corporate environ- – – Quantitative 3008 family – China Family-owned firms use corpo- mental miscon- firms (cross- rate philanthropic giving to duct; CEO’s sectional) distract from their corporate political network environmental misconduct. (moderator) Since politically well-connected CEOs can avoid high personal penalties due to their political contacts, this effect is nega- tively moderated by the CEO’s political network C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Du et al. (2016) Media coverage; – Institutional theory, Quantitative 733 family – China Due to the higher visibility that family ownership Stakeholder firms (7 year comes with more media cover- (moderator) theory panel) age, managers of family firms conduct more philanthropic giving. As the dependency on stakeholders decreases with family ownership, there is a negatively moderating effect of family ownership between media coverage and corporate philanthropic giving Dyer and Whetten Family ownership – Self-interest theory, Quantitative 261 firms L USA In terms of social initiatives there (2006) and management Social identity (10 year are no differences between fam- (combined) theory panel) ily firms and non-family firms. Family firms are more likely to avoid social concerns than non- family firms El Ghoul et al. Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative 335 firms – International In order to achieve personal (2016) (10 year (Asia) benefits, increasing family panel) ownership allows family owners to divert the firm resources to activities that bring them financial benefits. Furthermore, this is particularly true for fam- ily firms with greater agency problems and from countries with weak institutions El-Kassar et al. Audit committee; – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 203 employees Employees Lebanon Audit committees have a positive (2018) family manage- Agency theory of family impact on CSR practices in ment (moderator) firms (cross- the areas of health, refugees, sectional) community, and environment. In addition, family management has a positive moderating effect on the impact of CSR towards community, the environment, and health Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Ertuna et al. (2019) Family values; state – Institutional logics Qualitative 2 firms (case – Turkey This study compares the CSR regulations theory study) logics of a local hotel and a hotel chain. The local hotel adapts its CSR logic to local conditions and embeds it in the organization. The CSR logic of the hotel chain, which is speci- fied by the headquarters, is only partially adopted and varies in its interpretation and implemen- tation. Local needs and priori- ties are only implemented to a limited extent. The sustainabil- ity strategies in both companies are shaped by the family or the family headquarters Fitzgerald et al. Attitude towards – Sustainable family Quantitative 334 family- S M USA Members of the owning family (2010) community; com- business theory firm house- with a very positive attitude munity vulner- holds (2 year towards their local communities ability; family firm panel) were more willing to support resources their local community. Those with higher education were more likely to do so by taking leadership positions in the community, while individuals with more household assets and profit companies were more likely to provide financial assis- tance to their communities Fritz et al. (2021) Family ownership – Institutional theory Qualitative 12 firms S M L France They find that family firms take and management a specific approach in supply chain management, especially that the social sustainability dimension is crucial for family firms. For non-family firms, the focus is on the ratio of costs to benefits and client satisfaction C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research García-Sánchez Hostile environ- – SEW, Stakeholder Quantitative 956 firms L International This study shows that family-con- et al., (2021 mental conditions theory (9 year (Interconti- trolled firms adopt CSR strate- (moderatred by panel) nental) gies and balance the demands family ownership of internal and external interest and management) groups to preserve their SEW while facing fierce competition, resource scarcity, and penurious economic conditions Gallo (2004) Family-firm status – – Quantitative 44 academics People working International Family firms fulfill their respon- (cross-sec- on university (Interconti- sibility to create wealth and tional) institutions nental) provide products for society to a high degree. But there must be a greater focus on sustainable and long-term execution, oth- erwise it will only be generated for one generation Ge and Micelotta Firm visibility; – – Quantitative 3075 firms – China Firms that are more sensitive (2019) political linkages; (cross-sec- to institutional pressure due family ownership tional) to firm visibility and politi- and management cal linkages are more likely (moderator) to engage in philanthropy and further donate larger amounts. While family ownership has no effect on the giving behavior, it does moderate the relationship between institutional pressure and the amount of philanthropic giving positively Graafland et al. Family-firm status; – – Quantitative 111 firms S L Netherlands Family firms and non-family (2003) firm size (cross-sec- firms show very similar patterns tional) regarding to the use of instru- ments such as codes of conduct, ISO certification, social report- ing, social handbooks, and confidential. These instruments are influenced by the size of the company Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Graafland (2020) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 3816 family S M L International The relationship between owner- family manage- firms (cross- (Europe) ship of a family firm and envi- ment; firm size sectional) ronmentally friendly production (moderator) is stronger for smaller than for larger firms and is moderated by the involvement of family members in the management of the firm in a non-linear way. Differences between family and non-family firms are greater in small firms with family and non-family managers. Likewise, the best environmental perfor- mance is achieved in family firms managed by families and non-family members Huang et al. (2009) Family ownership green technical – Quantitative 235 firms – Taiwan Using the chemical, electronics and management innovation/green (cross-sec- and information technology (moderator: nega- administrative tional) industries, it is shown that tive (regulatory innovation there is a positive correlation stakeholder pres- between the degree of natural sure; market share- environmental pressure from holder pressure); stakeholders and the introduc- positive (pressure tion of green innovations. The from internal moderating effect of family stakeholders) firms leads to a negative effect of regulatory stakeholder pres- sure and market shareholder pressure on green innovations and a positive one of pressure from internal stakeholders. These differences are explained by organizational culture and core values Iyer and Lulseged Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 397 firms L USA There is no statistically signifi- (2013) and management Legitimacy (cross-sec- cant difference in the probabil- (combined) theory, Stake- tional) ity of CSR disclosure (sustaina- holder theory bility reporting) between family firms and non-family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Kallmuenzer et al. Family values; com- – Random utility Quantitative 152 firms S M Austria Family firms in rural tourism are (2018) munity embedded- theory motivated by environmental ness/stakeholder and social considerations after pressure a financial security, which gives a greater benefit than a greater financial profit, through the family conditional SEW dynamics and the resulting CSR increase Kariyapperuma and SEW – Family logics Qualitative 72 firm web- S M New Zealand Antecedents of heterogenei- Collins (2021) sites ties (i.e., family goals, family values, culture and ethics, and the imprints of the founders and the next generation) were revealed with a discussion of three typologies of family firms: family first, business first and upstarts Kim and Lee (2018) Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative 200 firms S M L South Korea Family firms have a lower CSP and management (3 year than non-family firms, which (combined); fam- panel) is even lower when a family ily CEO; family firm is managed by a family firm type CEO. Chaebols (family-run or controlled conglomerate) have a higher CSP than non-chaebol firms Kim et al. (2017) Top management – Behavioral theory, Quantitative 97 firms – USA Family influence has a positive attention to the Institutional (10 year moderating effect on the rela- natural environ- theory panel) tionship between top manage- ment; family ment’s attention to the natural ownership and environment and proactive management environmental action (combined) (mod- erator) Kim et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Place theory Quantitative 2000 firms L USA Family ownership reduces the population size (14 year probability of layoffs. The size (moderator) panel) of the population of the location in which the company operates has a negative moderating effect on this relationship Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Labelle et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW, Agency Quantitative 1264 firms – International Family firms have a lower CSP family control; theory (cross-sec- (Interconti- than non-family firms. In family stakeholder/share- tional) nental) firms, family control (voting holder-oriented rights) up to 36% increases the economy CSP in family firms, whereas family control more than 37% decreases their CSP. Family firms operating in stakeholder- oriented countries pay more attention to social issues than those operating in more shareholder-oriented countries Lamb and Butler Family ownership; – Stewardship theory, Quantitative 153 firms Fortune 500 USA Family ownership and the pres- (2018) family manage- SEW, Multiple (13 year ence of a family CEO increase ment; founding agency theory panel) CSR strength. In terms of CSR family presence concerns, the presence of a family CEO and a founding family has a negative effect Le Breton-Miller Being a family firm – – Conceptual – – – Characteristics that positively and Miller (2016) influence sustainability in family firms are: long-term orientation, reputation and agency costs. A negative effect can result from the following factors: family conflicts, SEW, and exploitation of smaller shareholders at the expense of sustainability. Important mediating roles (both positive and negative) could be family values, educational back- ground, organizational factors, governance arrangements and environmental forces López-González Family ownership; – SEW, Agency the- Quantitative 956 firms, L International Family ownership has a positive andet al. (2019) family manage- ory, Stakeholder (9 year (Interconti- effect on CSR performance. ment (moderator); theory, Institu- panel) nental) This relationship is positively market munifi- tional theory moderated by family manage- cence (moderator) ment and family directors on the board of directors, but negatively moderated by high market munificent C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Ma et al., (2022 Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 2671 firms L China This study reveals that SEW will family manage- (9 year enhance environmental respon- ment panel) sibility when a family member serves as the company’s chairman. There is a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between the length of family involvement and corporate envi- ronmental responsibility Madden et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Socioemotional Quantitative 1436 firms L USA Family ownership positively Family firm age selectivity theory (8 year affects investments in CSR (moderator) panel) activities. As family firms age, they become more selective and invest less heavily in CSR activities. Family firms age acts as a moderator of the relation- ship between family ownership and CSR Maggioni and San- Environmental non- – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 2275 firms S M L Italy Environmental non-profit tangelo (2017) profit organiza- Organizational (cross-sec- organizations operating in the tions (substitutes science tional) same local context influence for environmental family businesses more than regulations) non-family businesses to imple- ment more green investment strategies. This is due to their scarcity of resources, risk aversion and local roots, which makes family businesses more sensitive to their pressure. Envi- ronmental non-profit organiza- tions can serve as a substitute for sustainability compliance in sectors with low regulation Marques et al. Family involvement; – Stewardship theory, Qualitative 12 firms (inter - – Spain In family firms with family (2014) family values SEW views) CEOs, but more frequently in family firms with a high family ownership, the values of iden- tification and commitment are particularly evident. These have a strong impact on workplace- and community-related CSR Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Martínez-Ferrero Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 1275 firms – International Family firms are taking more et al. (2018) managerial discre- (8 year (Interconti- CSR measures to meet stake- tion panel) nental) holder demands and thereby gain greater discretionary power, for example to compen- sate for the manipulation of profits Martínez-Ferrero Board size; board – Agency theory, Quantitative 536 firms – International In stakeholder-oriented countries, et al. (2017) independency; Institutional (8 year (Interconti- board size and board independ- family ownership theory panel) nental) ence have a positive effect on (moderator) sustainability assurance, which is further positively moderated by family ownership. Board size and board independence also have a positive effect on sustainability reports provided by professional accountants, which are not influenced by family ownership McGuire et al. Family owner- – – Quantitative 473 firms L USA Family firms are less likely than (2012) ship and family non-family businesses to engage management; cor- in negative or socially harmful porate governance activities. In general, corporate (moderator) governance is not related to the social performance of the company. However, it has a moderating effect on the rela- tionship between family control and social performance Memili et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Psychological capi- Quantitative 192 family S M Turkey Using data of the hospitality and long term orienta- tal theory firms (cross- tourism industry, it is shown tion (moderator) sectional) that SEW has a negative effect on firm performance (sales) and that family firm psychological capital mitigates this effect. Likewise, this effect can be mitigated by a long-term orien- tation, if non-financial strengths (family firm psychological capital) are used and the effects of financially focused goals are minimized C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Meier and Schier Family management – Behavioral agency Quantitative 555 firms L International This study provides evidence (2021) model (4 year (Interconti- that family CEOs are positively panel) nental) associated with both external and internal CSR, whereas non-family CEOs within family firms tend to be negatively associated with both external and internal CSR Miroshnychenko Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 26 articles S M L International This study concludes that the et al. (2022) Stewardship (meta-anal- (Interconti- average effect of family involve- theory ysis) nental) ment on environmental perfor- mance is negative, albeit small Muttakin and Khan Family ownership – Legitimacy theory Quantitative 135 firms L Bangladesh Family ownership has a negative (2014) (5 year effect on CSR disclosures. panel) Export oriented sectors, firm size and industry sectors also have a positive effect on CSR disclosures Nadeem et al. Family ownership; – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 399 firms L UK Board gender diversity has a (2020) board gender Gender socialization (10 year positive effect on stakeholder diversity theory panel) value creation. This effect can be observed for economic, social and environmental per- formance. Even though female directors of family firms are associated with environmental value creation, they have no impact on economic and social value creation Oh et al. (2019) Family manage- – – Quantitative 290 firms L South Korea Outside directors’ ownership, as ment; outside (5 year well as board educational diver- directors’ owner- panel) sity, have a positive moderating ship (moderator); effect on CSR in firms with board educational low family management but a diversity (modera- negative moderating effect on tor) CSR in firms with high family management Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Palma et al. (2022) Family ownership; – Legitimacy theory, Quantitative 360 (cross- – International This study reveals that greater family manage- SEW sectional) (Europe) prominence is attributed to ment; billionair sustainability issues on corpo- ownership rate websites when the family company’s CEO is a family member and the level of family ownership is lower. The promi- nence attributed to sustainabil- ity issues on corporate websites by family companies owned by European billionaires is greater than that of family companies not owned by billionaires, but only when using a less stringent measure of prominence Peake et al. (2017) Owning family’s – Social capital theory Quantitative 279 family- S USA The owning family’s duration duration in a com- firm house- in a community is positively munity; owning holds (2 year associated with their participa- family’s commu- panel) tion in community develop- nity satisfaction; ment activities. The greater the female manage- level of dissatisfaction with ment (moderator) the community, the greater the willingness to participate in the work of supporting community development. Female manage- ment moderates the relationship between community satisfaction and participation in community development C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Rees and Rodionova Family ownership; – – Quantitative 3893 firms – International Closely held equity and family (2015) liberal/coordinated (11 year (Interconti- ownership have a negative market economy panel) nental) impact on environmental, social, and governance perfor- mance. In terms of governance control, closely held equity shows no impact on environ- mental and social rankings, whereas family ownership continues to have a negative impact. These results are found in liberal market economies and coordinated market economies, whereas the latter generally reflects weaker performance and considerable diversity Richards et al. Family influence; – – Quantitative 86 firms – International Using the coffee, tea, and choco- (2017) domestic world or (cross-sec- (Interconti- late industry as an example, the civic-green world tional) nental) study shows that investment rhetoric, multi- in sustainability certificates generation control depends on the chosen legiti- (whether one macy principles and the reflec- family had been tion of identity orientation, the the firm's main “civic and green” world and the blockholder for at “domestic” world. The domes- least two genera- tic dependency of the compa- tions) nies has a negative impact on investments for sustainability certifications, because the legit- imacy communication takes place in a different way. The methods of legitimacy depend on the generational integration of the family firm. Multi-gener - ational family firms can better integrate socially responsible attributes through its long-term stakeholder relationships and therefore do not need sustain- ability certifications Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Sahasranamam et al. Family ownership; – Agency theory, Quantitative (8 year panel) L India Family ownership is positively (2020) business group Institutional related to community-related owned (modera- theory CSR. There is no significant tor) moderating effect of busi- ness group ownership in this relationship Samara et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW Qualitative 146 family - International Family firms show positive SEW family manage- firms (cross- (Interconti- and higher environmental social ment; family sectional) nental) performance when 100% of commitment; the business is in family hands, generation of man- when the first generation is agement; outside still involved in management, directors when the board is dominated by family members, and when family involvement in man- agement is low. When many family members are involved in management, the negative effects of SEW become visible and less social performance is performed. Non-Anglo-Saxon countries focus more on long- term stakeholder welfare and less on managerial compensa- tion to firm profitability. There- fore, they achieve high social performance (a) when family- dominated management is com- plemented by a board of family and non-family members, (b) when business ownership is shared with external parties and non-family board members mediate conflicts between them, and (c) when there is shared business ownership and the top management team is dominated by the first generation C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Sánchez-Medina Family values; – Sustainable family Quantitative 72 family firms S Mexico Environmental pressure leads and Díaz-Pichardo environmental business theory (cross-sec- to the introduction of quality (2017) values (mediator); tional) practices in artisanal family environmental firms through the formation pressure of environmental values. This effect is completely mediated by the environmental values of the owner family Seckin-Halac et al. family ownership; – Agency theory, Quantitative 4479 firms L International The study finds by a moder - (2021) Ownership con- Stakeholder (6 year (Interconti- ated path analysis that family centration theory, Theory of panel) nental) shareholding weakens the direct planned behavior effect of ownership concentra- tion on board gender diversity and its indirect effect on corpo- rate social responsibility Sharma and Sharma Family influence; – Theory of planned Conceptual – – – High family involvement has a (2011) family values; behavior positive effect on the exercise relationship of the proactive environmen- conflict (negative tal strategy. This intention moderator) is increased if there are low relationship conflicts within the controlling family in the family business, as resources for implementation can then be better provided Terlaak et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 259 firms L South Korea Family ownership and the family manage- (7 year propensity of a business group ment panel) to disclose environmental performance information have a U-shape relationship. This U-shape is moderated and strengthened by the presence of a family CEO Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Uhlaner et al. (2004) Family firm status; – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 42 family firms S M Netherlands The family character of the busi- family genera- (cross-sec- ness most frequently impacts tion; community tional) employee, client, and supplier embeddedness; relationships. Statistically firm size; fam- significant interaction effects ily firm name are reported for the following includes family’s moderator variables: generation surname of the owner; company tenure in the community; community size; company size; and inclu- sion of the family surname in the business name Uhlaner et al. (2012) Family influence – Theory of planned Quantitative 689 firms S M Netherlands SMEs with a greater family influ- (power, experi- behavior (2 year ence are more likely to engage ence, culture); panel) in environmental management number of owners practices. This increases in fam- (moderator) ily firms with larger business- owning families (moderation) Wiklund (2006) Family ownership – Agency theory Conceptual – – – Family firms show more positive CSR behavior, due to the bond between the family and the company Yu et al. (2015) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 229 firms – Taiwan Family firms have a better CSR majority owner- (5 year performance than non-family ship; independent panel) firms. SEW, measured by the directors majority shareholding and the proportion of independent directors on the board, has a positive effect on CSR Yu et al. (2021) Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative (6-year panel) L South Korea This study shows that family and management; firms with ownership, opera- provincial environ- tional, and strategic control can mental regulations achieve higher environmental performance within a province with more stringent environ- mental regulations C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Zamir and Saeed Closeness to – Legitimacy theory Quantitative 649 firms – International Firms located closer to the (2020) financial markets; Institutional theory (6-year panel) (Interconti- financial centers have a higher family ownership nental) CSR disclosure rates compared (moderator); fam- to their more distant counter- ily commitment parts. This effect is positively moderated by family ownership and being a listed company. The negative effect of distance on CSR disclosure is stronger in countries with higher income inequality Zheng et al. (2017) Family values; – Social information Qualitative Single case L China The study examines why employ- Machiavellian cor- processing theory study ees exhibit counterproductive porate culture (low Grounded theory work behavior. This is caused, organizational jus- among other things, by Machi- tice, psychological avellian corporate culture, contract violation, which is characterized by low low trust) trust and strong control, as well as psychological contract viola- tions, as these factors leads to the idea of mutual exploitation S small, M medium, L large (listed) Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 12 Content Analysis of Family Firm specific Corporate Social Responsibility outcomes Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Adomako et al. (2019) – Firm performance Resource-based view Quantitative 253 firms (cross-sec- S M Ghana Environmental sustaina- (insignificant) theory tional) bility orientation shows no significant impact on performance in fam- ily businesses, but is enhanced in non-family businesses Hsueh (2018) – External non-financial Source credibility Quantitative Study 1: 167 NGO’s – International (Intercon- Family firms have a outcomes theory (cross-sectional), tinental) larger credibility gap in Study 2: 335 stake- publishing sustainabil- holder ity reporting than non- family businesses. This gap can be reduced by an independent assur- ance service. Family businesses derive greater value with rea- sonable assurance than non-family firms Lin et al. (2020) – Credit rating (moder- Agency theory Quantitative 1475 firms (9 year L Taiwan CSR has a moderating ated by family owner- panel) and partial mediation ship) effect between corpo- rate governance and credit rating. However, this connection could not be established for family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 12 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Martínez-Ferrero et al. – Information asymmetry Agency theory Quantitative 548 firms (7 year – International (Intercon- CSR disclosures reduce (2018) (moderated by family panel) tinental) information asym- ownership) metry, which in turn also positively effects the level of CSR disclosures. Fam- ily ownership has a negative moderating effect on the relation- ship between CSR and information asym- metry, reversing the original negative effect. The effect between information asymmetry and CSR is negatively moderated by family ownership, reversing the original effect in family firms Maung et al. (2020) – Financial market reac- Signaling theory Quantitative (10 year panel) – USA The financial markets tion (moderated by react positively to the family management) donations of religious CEOs and are further positively moderated by is the presence of a founder or family CEO Naciye Sekerci et al. – Investors reaction Signaling theory Quantitative 133 firms (11 year L France Markets react more (2022) (moderated by family panel) positively to CSR news ownership and man- from family firms than agement) from non-family firms Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 12 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Pan et al. (2018) – Financial outcomes; – Quantitative 885 firms (9 year – China Family firms exhibit post-succession per- panel) more corporate formance philanthropy when the handover to the second generation is imminent. In the process, better market and account- ing performance is achieved in addition to generally poor per- formance, indicating a strategic deployment Panwar et al. (2014) – External non-financial – Quantitative 278 US residents – USA Firm outsiders perceive outcomes (cross-sectional) the legitimacy of CSR measures of family- owned firms as higher than those of publicly listed firms Samara and Arenas – Internal non-financial – Conceptual – – – Family firms that pro- (2017) outcomes; long-term mote fairness in the family firm survival workplace can benefit and success; firm by preserving their rep- reputation utation and enhancing the long-term survival of the business Wagner (2010) – Innovation with high – Quantitative 252 firms (11 year L USA There is a positive link social benefits panel) between CSP and inno- (moderated by family vation with high social ownership) benefits. This relation- ship is positively moderated by family ownership S small, M medium, L large (listed) C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 Content Analysis of Family Firm specific Corporate Social Responsibility Antecedents and Outcomes Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Ahmad et al. (2020) Family involvement Financial outcomes Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 489 owner & execu- S M Pakistan Family involvement (family com- (financial strength); Transaction cost tives (150 family in the company mitment; family internal non- economics theory firms) (cross- (through fam- continuity; family financial outcomes sectional) ily commitment, control; family (internal capabili- continuity, control, enrichment) ties; strategic per- enrichment) has a spective; learning; positive influence growth); external on the sustain- non-financial out- able survival of the comes (customer company (financial strength, customer orientation) orientation, internal capabilities, strategic perspective, learning & growth). This effect is partially mediated by CSR Antheaume et al. Family values; com- Internal non- Grounded theory Qualitative 17 family firms (6 M L France Longevity of family (2013) munity embedded- financial outcomes interviews) firms is promoted by ness (longevity) interdependencies and the networking of different areas, the embedding of the family in the business as well as the embedding of the business in society and the pass- ing on of capital to the next generation. Sustainable develop- ment is preferred to short-term profits Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Biscotti et al. (2018) Family ownership; Internal non- Social identity Qualitative 262 firms (10 year – International The EMAS-certified environmental financial outcomes theory, Institu- panel) environmental management sys- (environmental tional theory management system tems (knowledge product innovation) has a moderating management) effect in family businesses on the knowledge manage- ment practices of employee training and development and, through this, on green product innovation. The ISO 14001 certified envi- ronmental manage- ment system does not lead to proactive behavior in family and non-family busi- nesses Choi et al. (2019) Family ownership; Firm performance – Quantitative 198 (6 year panel) L South Korea Family ownership has being a chaebol a negative effect firm (moderator) on corporate social performance (CSP). This effect is lower (moderation) in chaebol (family- run or controlled conglomerate) firms than in non-chaebol firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Craig and Dibrell Family ownership Financial perfor- Stewardship theory Quantitative 396 firms (cross- S M USA Family firms are better (2006) and management mance (firm per - sectional) able to promote formance); internal environmentally non-financial friendly policies outcomes (firm than non-family innovation) firms, although non- family businesses place more emphasis on this. In family businesses, this leads to improved business innovation and higher financial performance Dangelico (2017) Family ownership Green product – Quantitative 188 firms (cross- S M L Italy Family firms show a and management development sectional) positive effect on (differentiation); the differentiation radicalness or mar- of green product ket performance of developments. They green products (not show no significance significant) in the radicality or market performance of green product Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Doluca et al. (2018) Family ownership Financial outcomes Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 633 firm observa- S M L Germany Compared to non- and management (stabilizing, Institutional theory tions (4 year panel) family firms, family (no significant economic perfor- firm show fewer difference (but mance); internal environment-related stabilizing effect non-financial activities and fewer over time) outcomes (stabiliz- beneficial product, ing, environmental process and organi- product/process zational innovations innovation) and services at the beginning of the study. In the process of the study, a convergence process can be identified, as family businesses are catching up with non-family firms. Family firms also show less volatility in their environmen- tal behavior Kashmiri and Family name Financial outcomes; – Quantitative 130 family firms L USA Family firms that Mahajan (2010) return on assets (5 year panel) carry the family (performance) name compared to family businesses without the family name have higher corporate citizen- ship, representation of their customers' voice on the top management team, higher strategic focus (resource allocation to adver- tising), and better performance (higher return on invest- ment). Performance is mediated by higher corporate citi- zenship and stronger strategic focus C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Kashmiri and Family management; External non- – Quantitative 107 family firms & L USA Family firms that Mahajan (2014a) family name; ethi- financial outcomes; 1294 product intro- bear the founder’s cal product-related financial outcomes duction announce- name have higher behavior (media- (increasing of the ments (3 year abnormal stock tor) abnormal stock panel) returns surrounding returns) the firm's new prod- uct introductions compared to family firms without the founder's name. This effect is mediated by the ethical behavior of the firms, includ- ing the fact that they are less involved in product-related controversies Kashmiri and Family ownership Firm performance – Quantitative 275 firms (10 year L USA CSR mediates the Mahajan (2014b) and management panel) relationship between (combined) family ownership/ management and firm performance. In contrast to non- family firms, family firms do not reduce their CSR during a recession, which results in higher firm performance Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Liu et al. (2017) Family ownership Accrual-based – Quantitative (8 year panel) L USA Family firms tend to and family man- earnings manage- have a higher CSR agement (com- ment; real earnings performance than bined) management non-family firms and have less accrual- based earnings management and real earnings man- agement. Further- more, the positive effect of CSR on earnings manage- ment described in the research is attributable to family involvement Niehm et al. (2008) Family firm size Subjective busi- – Quantitative 221 family-firm S USA The size of a family ness performance; households (2 year firm has a positive objective financial panel) impact on the CSR performance dimension “com- munity support,” which in turn has a positive effect on the objective (financial) performance of the firm. In contrast, the CSR dimension “commitment to the community” is positively linked to forms’ subjective performance C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research O’Boyle et al. (2010) Family involvement Financial outcomes – Quantitative 526 family firms S M USA The ethical focus of a (financial perfor - (cross-sectional) company mediates mance) the relationship between family involvement and financial results. The factors value con- gruence and partici- pative continuance have a positive effect on ethical focus, while ownership and control and profes- sionalism show a negative effect Singal (2014) Family ownership Financial perfor- Instrumental theory Quantitative 534 firms (11 year – USA Family firms have a and management mance panel) better financial and (combined) CSR performance than non-family firms, whereby the higher CSR per- formance in family firms is triggered by their better financial performance. Family firms continue to invest more in miti- gating concerns than in positive initiatives to build strengths in CSR performance. Family firms’ higher CSR inclination further has a posi- tive impact on their future financial performance Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Wu et al. (2014) Family ownership Costs of capital – Quantitative 482 firms (4 year – Taiwan Firms with CSR panel) awards have lower cost of capital. Family firms with CSR have lower cost of capital than do non-family firms with CSR Zientara (2017) SEW Family firm reputa- SEW Theoretical – – – Due to SEW orienta- tion tion, family firms use an instrumental and selective CSR approach rather than a holistic or normative one. This often leads to socially responsible behavior towards external stakehold- ers, but irresponsible behavior towards internal stakehold- ers. Family firms pick those CSR initiatives that serve their own interests, like improving the firm’s image and reputation S small, M medium, L large (listed) C. Stock et al. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt corporate life cycle. Business Strategy and the Environment, DEAL. 27(8), 1596–1608. Association of Business Schools. (2021). Academic journal guide. Chartered Association of Business Schools. Declarations Astrachan, J. H., Astrachan, C. B., Campopiano, G., & Baù, M. (2020). Values, spirituality and religion: Family business and the roots of Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare sustainable ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), that are relevant to the content of this article. 637–645. Ballantyne, J. C., & Loeser, J. D. (2021). Empire of pain: The Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- secret history of the Sackler dynasty. Anesthesiology, 135(6), bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 1166–1167. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Bammens, Y., & Hünermund, P. (2020). Nonfinancial considerations as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, in eco-innovation decisions: The role of family ownership and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes reputation concerns. Journal of Product Innovation Manage- were made. The images or other third party material in this article are ment, 37(5), 431–453. included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Baù, M., Block, J., Discua Cruz, A., & Naldi, L. (2021). Bridging otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in locality and internationalization–A research agenda on the the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not sustainable development of family firms. Entrepreneurship & permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Regional Development, 33(7–8), 477–492. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Bendell, B. L. (2022). Environmental investment decisions of fam- copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . ily firms—An analysis of competitor and government influence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 1–14. Bennedsen, M., Tsoutsoura, M., & Wolfenzon, D. (2019). Drivers of effort: Evidence from employee absenteeism. Journal of Finan- References cial Economics, 133(3), 658–684. Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family busi- Abeysekera, A. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2020). Corporate social respon- nesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. sibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A family firm Futures, 75, 54–65. perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101370. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (1996). Ethics in family and (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to non-family owned firms: An exploratory study. Family Business institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Review, 9(2), 157–170. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113. Adomako, S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Danso, A., Konadu, R., & Bhatnagar, N., Sharma, P., & Ramachandran, K. (2020). Spirituality Owusu-Agyei, S. (2019). Environmental sustainability orienta- and corporate philanthropy in Indian family firms: An explora- tion and performance of family and nonfamily firms. Business tory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 715–728. Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1250–1259. Bingham, J. B., Dyer, W. G., Smith, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A Agostino, M., & Ruberto, S. (2021). Environment-friendly practices: stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social Family versus non-family firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 329, 129689. 565–585. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about Biscotti, A. M., D’Amico, E., & Monge, F. (2018). Do environmental corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. management systems affect the knowledge management pro- Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. cess? The impact on the learning evolution and the relevance Ahmad, S., Siddiqui, K. A., & AboAlsamh, H. M. (2020). Family of organisational context. Journal of Knowledge Management, SMEs’ survival: The role of owner family and corporate social 22(3), 603–620. responsibility. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Devel- Biswas, P., Roberts, H., & Whiting, R. (2019). The impact of family opment, 27(2), 281–297. vs non-family governance contingencies on CSR reporting in Amann, B., Jaussaud, J., & Martinez, I. (2012). Corporate social Bangladesh. Management Decision, 57(10), 2758–2781. responsibility in Japan: Family and non-family business differ - Block, J. (2010). Family management, family ownership, and down- ences and determinants. Asian Business & Management, 11(3), sizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Family Business Review, 329–345. 23(2), 109–130. Amidjaya, P. G., & Widagdo, A. K. (2020). Sustainability reporting Block, J., & Wagner, M. (2014a). Ownership versus management in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, owner- effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large fam- ship structure and digital banking matter? Journal of Applied ily and founder firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(4), Accounting Research, 21(2), 231–247. 339–346. Antheaume, N., Robic, P., & Barbelivien, D. (2013). French family Block, J., & Wagner, M. (2014b). The effect of family ownership on business and longevity: Have they been conducting sustainable different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence development policies before it became a fashion? Business His- from large US firms. Business Strategy & the Environment, tory, 55(6), 942–962. 23(7), 475–492. Aragón-Amonarriz, C., Arredondo, A. M., & Iturrioz-Landart, C. Blodgett, M. S., Dumas, C., & Zanzi, A. (2011). Emerging trends in (2019). How can responsible family ownership be sustained global ethics: A comparative study of US and international fam- across generations? A family social capital approach. Journal of ily business values. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 29–38. Business Ethics, 159(1), 161–185. Cabeza-García, L., Sacristán-Navarro, M., & Gómez-Ansón, S. (2017). Arena, C., & Michelon, G. (2018). A matter of control or identity? Family involvement and corporate social responsibility disclo- Family firms’ environmental reporting decisions along the sure. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(2), 109–122. 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. A., & Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entre- literature review and guidance for future research. International preneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1295–1316. Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 317–355. Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I. Campopiano, G., & De Massis, A. (2015). Corporate social respon- M. (2015). The role of independent directors at family firms in sibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures. Interna- firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 511–534. tional Business Review, 24(5), 890–901. Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Chirico, F. (2014). Firm philan- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., García-Sánchez, I.-M., thropy in small-and medium-sized family firms: The effects of & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2017). The mediating effect of ethical family involvement in ownership and management. Family Busi- codes on the link between family firms and their social perfor - ness Review, 27(3), 244–258. mance. Innovation and Sustainability, 50(6), 756–765. Campopiano, G., Rinaldi, F. R., Sciascia, S., & De Massis, A. (2019). Cui, V., Ding, S., Liu, M., & Wu, Z. (2018). Revisiting the effect of Family and non-family women on the board of directors: Effects family involvement on corporate social responsibility: A behav- on corporate citizenship behavior in family-controlled fashion ioral agency perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 41–51. 291–309. Chadwick, I. C., & Dawson, A. (2018). Women leaders and firm per - Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: formance in family businesses: An examination of financial and An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility nonfinancial outcomes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13. 9(4), 238–249. Dal Maso, L., Basco, R., Bassetti, T., & Lattanzi, N. (2020). Family Chen, J., & Liu, L. (2022). Family firms, national culture and corporate ownership and environmental performance: The mediation effect social performance: A meta-analysis. Cross Cultural & Strategic of human resource practices. Business Strategy and the Environ- Management, 29(2), 379–402. ment, 29(3), 1548–1562. Chen, Y. L., & Cheng, H. Y. (2020). Public family businesses and cor- Danes, S. M., & Brewton, K. E. (2012). Follow the capital: Benefits porate social responsibility assurance: The role of mimetic pres- of tracking family capital across family and business systems. In sures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 39(3), 106734. A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding family busi- Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the nesses (pp. 227–250). Springer. antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation Danes, S. M., Lee, J., Stafford, K., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2008). The effects of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), of ethnicity, families and culture on entrepreneurial experience: 1558–1585. An extension of sustainable family business theory. Journal of Choi, Y. K., Han, S. H., & Kwon, Y. (2019). CSR activities and internal Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(03), 229–268. capital markets: Evidence from Korean business groups. Pacific- Dangelico, R. M. (2017). What drives green product development and Basin Finance Journal, 55, 283–298. how do different antecedents affect market performance? A sur - Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2010). vey of Italian companies with eco-labels. Business Strategy and Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non- the Environment, 26(8), 1144–1161. economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Ashton, T., & Evangelopoulos, N. (2021). Practice, 36(2), 267–293. Family firm heterogeneity: A definition, common themes, schol- Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2005). Sources and conse- arly progress, and directions forward. Family Business Review, quences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneur- 34(3), 296–322. ship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247. Dawson, A., Ginesti, G., & Sciascia, S. (2020). Family-related ante- Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family cedents of business legality: An empirical investigation among business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Italian family owned SMEs. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 23(4), 19–39. 11(1), 100284. Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Green paper: Pro- Dayan, M., Ng, P. Y., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2019). Mindfulness, socioemo- moting a European framework for corporate social responsibil- tional wealth, and environmental strategy of family businesses. ity. Commission of the European Communities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(3), 466–481. Cordeiro, J. J., Galeazzo, A., Shaw, T. S., Veliyath, R., & Nandakumar, de Déniz, M. C. D., & Suárez, M. K. C. (2005). Corporate social M. K. (2018). Ownership inu fl ences on corporate social responsi - responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business bility in the Indian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Ethics, 56(1), 27–41. 35(4), 1107–1136. De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family Cordeiro, J. J., Profumo, G., & Tutore, I. (2020). Board gender diver- business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal sity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 15–29. role of family and dual-class majority ownership structures. Busi- Dekker, J., & Hasso, T. (2016). Environmental performance focus in ness Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1127–1144. private family firms: The role of social embeddedness. Journal Craig, J., & Dibrell, C. (2006). The natural environment, innovation, of Business Ethics, 136(2), 293–309. and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Delmas, M. A., & Gergaud, O. (2014). Sustainable certification for Review, 19(4), 275–288. future generations: The case of family business. Family Business Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2013). Corporate social Review, 27(3), 228–243. responsibility in a global context. In A. Crane, D. Matten, & L. Dick, M., Wagner, E., & Pernsteiner, H. (2021). Founder-controlled J. Spence (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and family firms, overconfidence, and corporate social responsibil - cases in a global context (pp. 3–26). SSRN. ity engagement: Evidence from survey data. Family Business Cruz, C., Justo, R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Garcés-Galdeano, L. Review, 34(1), 71–92. (2019). When do women make a better table? Examining the Dimov, D. (2017). Towards a qualitative understanding of human capi- influence of women directors on family firm’s corporate social tal in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entre- performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), preneurial Behavior & Research, 23(2), 210–227. 282–301. Discua Cruz, A. (2020). There is no need to shout to be heard! The paradoxical nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) 1 3 C. Stock et al. reporting in a Latin American family small and medium-sized to environmental hostility: Are family firms more stakeholder enterprise (SME). International Small Business Journal, 38(3), oriented? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 243–267. 1003–1018. Doluca, H., Wagner, M., & Block, J. (2018). Sustainability and envi- Ge, J., & Micelotta, E. (2019). When does the family matter? Institu- ronmental behaviour in family firms: A longitudinal analysis tional pressures and corporate philanthropy in China. Organiza- of environment-related activities, innovation and performance. tion Studies, 40(6), 833–857. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 152–172. Giner, B., & Ruiz, A. (2020). Family entrepreneurial orientation as Dou, J., Su, E., & Wang, S. (2019). When does family ownership pro- a driver of longevity in family firms: a historic analysis of the mote proactive environmental strategy? The role of the firm’s ennobled Trenor family and Trenor y Cía. Business History, long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 81–95. 2020, 1–32. Du, X. (2015). Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental mis- Global Family Business Index. (2021). Global family business index. conduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. University of St. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 341–361. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. Du, X., Pei, H., Du, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2016). Media coverage, family J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish China. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(2), 224–253. olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. Du, X., Zeng, Q., & Chang, Y. (2018). To be philanthropic when being Graafland, J. (2020). Family business ownership and cleaner produc- international: Evidence from Chinese family firms. Journal of tion: Moderation by company size and family management. Jour- Management & Organization, 24(3), 424–449. nal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120120. Dyer, W. G., Jr., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social Graafland, J., van de Ven, B., & Stoffele, N. (2003). Strategies and responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entre- instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses preneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802. in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 45–60. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based frame- Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. work for assessing the strategic advantages of family r fi ms. Fam- El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. Y. (2016). ily Business Review, 12(1), 1–25. Family control and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations Banking & Finance, 73, 131–146. in studying family businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), El-Kassar, A. N., ElGammal, W., & Fahed-Sreih, J. (2018). Engage- 257–276. ment of family members, corporate governance and social Hernes, T., & Bakken, T. (2003). Implications of self-reference: Niklas responsibility in family-owned enterprises. Journal of Organi- Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization zational Change Management, 31(1), 215–229. Studies, 24(9), 1511–1535. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The tri- Hsueh, J. W. J. (2018). Governance structure and the credibility gap: ple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Experimental evidence on family businesses’ sustainability Management, 8(1), 37–51. reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 547–568. Ertuna, B., Karatas-Ozkan, M., & Yamak, S. (2019). Diffusion of sus - Huang, Y. C., Ding, H. B., & Kao, M. R. (2009). Salient stakeholder tainability and CSR discourse in hospitality industry: Dynamics voices: Family business and green innovation adoption. Journal of local context. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi- of Management & Organization, 15(3), 309–326. tality Management, 31(6), 2564–2581. International Family Enterprise Research Academy (2003). Family Faller, C. M., & Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018). Does equity own- businesses dominate: International Family Enterprise Research ership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature Academy (IFERA). Family Business Review, 16(4), 235–240. review of theories and recent empirical findings. Journal of Iyer, V., & Lulseged, A. (2013). Does family status impact US firms’ Business Ethics, 150(1), 15–40. sustainability reporting? Sustainability Accounting, Management Fehre, K., & Weber, F. (2019). Why some are more equal: Family firm and Policy Journal, 4(2), 163–189. heterogeneity and the effect on management’s attention to CSR. Izzo, M. F., & Ciaburri, M. (2018). Why do they do that? Motives and Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 321–334. dimensions of family firms’ CSR engagement. Social Responsi- Fitzgerald, M. A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H. L., & Danes, S. M. bility Journal., 14, 633. (2010). Socially responsible processes of small family business Jang, J., & Danes, S. M. (2013). Role interference in family businesses. owners: Exploratory evidence from the National Family Business Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 367–390. Survey. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(4), 524–551. Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2017). Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & Weismeier-Sam- Introducing the family: A review of family science with implica- mer, D. (2017). Capturing the familiness of family businesses: tions for management research. Academy of Management Annals, Development of the family influence familiness scale (FIFS). 11(1), 309–341. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 709–742. Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate social responsi- room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family bility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Sym- business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 111–118. phonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 7–15. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Manage- Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De rial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cam- Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. bridge University Press. Kallmuenzer, A., Nikolakis, W., Peters, M., & Zanon, J. (2018). Trade- Fritz, M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A., & Harms, R. (2021). Sustainabil- offs between dimensions of sustainability: Exploratory evidence ity management in supply chains: the role of familiness. Techno- from family firms in rural tourism regions. Journal of Sustain- logical Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121078. able Tourism, 26(7), 1204–1221. Gallo, M. A. (2004). The family business and its social responsibilities. Kariyapperuma, N., & Collins, E. (2021). Family logics and environ- Family Business Review, 17(2), 135–148. mental sustainability: A study of the New Zealand wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3626–3650. García-Sánchez, I. M., Martín-Moreno, J., Khan, S. A., & Hussain, N. (2021). Socio-emotional wealth and corporate responses 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of Liu, M., Shi, Y., Wilson, C., & Wu, Z. (2017). Does family involve- the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of ment explain why corporate social responsibility affects earnings Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280. management? Journal of Business Research, 75, 8–16. Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2014a). A rose by any other name: Are López-González, E., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Meca, E. (2019). family firms named after their founding families rewarded more Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A contingency for their new product introductions? Journal of Business Ethics, approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1044–1064. 124(1), 81–99. Lorandini, C. (2015). Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2014b). Beating the recession blues: The Salvadori firm of Trento, 1660s–1880s. Business History, Exploring the link between family ownership, strategic marketing 57(7), 1005–1019. behavior and firm performance during recessions. International Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2021). Experimental studies in family business Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 78–93. research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(1), 100361. Kim, A., & Lee, Y. (2018). Family firms and corporate social per - Lumpkin, G. T., & Brigham, K. H. (2011). Long–term orientation and formance: Evidence from Korean firms. Asia Pacific Business intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory Review, 24(5), 693–713. and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169. Kim, J., Fairclough, S., & Dibrell, C. (2017). Attention, action, and Ma, B., Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., Lai, Y., Zhou, Z., & Bashir, M. F. (2022). greenwash in family-influenced firms? Evidence from pollut- Can controlling family involvement promote firms to fulfill envi- ing industries. Organization & Environment, 30(4), 304–323. ronmental responsibilities?—Evidence from China. Managerial Kim, K., Haider, Z. A., Wu, Z., & Dou, J. (2020). Corporate social and Decision Economics, 43(2), 569–592. performance of family firms: A place-based perspective in the Madden, L., McMillan, A., & Harris, O. (2020). Drivers of selectivity context of layoffs. Journal of Business Ethics. https:// doi. org/ in family firms: Understanding the impact of age and ownership 10. 1007/ s10551- 019- 04152-5 on CSR. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 11(2), 100335. Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneuri- Maggioni, D., & Santangelo, G. D. (2017). Local environmental non- ally active in business: Exploring the values and family char- profit organizations and the green investment strategies of family acteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family Business Review, firms. Ecological Economics, 138, 126–138. 15(3), 175–187. Mariani, M. M., Al-Sultan, K., & De Massis, A. (2021). Corporate Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment review. Journal of Small Business Management. to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- Marques, P., Presas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The heterogeneity of tice, 37(6), 1263–1288. family firms in CSR engagement: The role of values. Family Kumar, M. S., & Vaz, M. M. (2017). Capacity building through Business Review, 27(3), 206–227. social entrepreneurship & CSR initiatives. International Jour- Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. nal of Management and Research, 6(7), 109–118. (2017). The strength of the board on sustainability assurance Kuttner, M., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). Corporate social decisions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Develop- responsibility in family firms-Status quo and future directions. ment, 24(4), 863–886. International Journal of Business Strategy, 18(1), 238. Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., Garcia-Sanchez, I.-M., & Kuttner, M., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Mitter, C. (2021). Cor- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2018). Corporate social responsibility porate social responsibility in Austrian family firms: Soci- disclosure and information asymmetry: The role of family owner- oemotional wealth and stewardship insights from a qualitative ship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(4), 885–916. approach. Journal of Family Business Management, 11(2), Matheson J (2021). Sustainability report 2021. Retrieved December 2, 238–253. 2022, from https:// susta inabi lity. jardi nes. com/ 2021/ index. html La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A con- ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), ceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate 471–517. social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), Labelle, R., Hafsi, T., Francoeur, C., & Ben Amar, W. (2018). Family 404–424. firms’ corporate social performance: A calculated quest for soci- Maung, M., Miller, D., Tang, Z., & Xu, X. (2020). Value-enhancing oemotional wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 511–525. social responsibility: Market reaction to donations by family vs Laguir, I., Laguir, L., & Elbaz, J. (2016). Are family small- and non-family firms with religious CEOs. Journal of Business Eth- medium-sized enterprises more socially responsible than non- ics, 163(4), 745–758. family small- and medium-sized enterprises? Corporate Social McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Ibrahim, B. (2012). All in the family? Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 23(6), 386–398. performance and corporate governance in the family firm. Jour - Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. (2018). The influence of family firms and nal of Business Research, 65(11), 1643–1650. institutional owners on corporate social responsibility perfor- Meier, O., & Schier, G. (2021). CSR and family CEO: The moderating mance. Business & Society, 57(7), 1374–1406. role of CEO’s age. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(3), 595–612. Lamb, N. H., Butler, F. C., & Roundy, P. (2017). Family firms and Memili, E., Fang, H., Chrisman, J. J., & De Massis, A. (2015). The corporate social responsibility: Exploring “concerns.” Journal impact of small-and medium-sized family firms on economic of Strategy and Management, 10(4), 469–487. growth. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 771–785. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2016). Family firms and practices of Memili, E., Patel, P. C., Koç, B., & Yazıcıoğlu, İ. (2020). The interplay sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family Business between socioemotional wealth and family firm psychological Strategy, 7(1), 26–33. capital in influencing firm performance in hospitality and tour - Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2022). Family businesses under ism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100651. COVID-19: Inspiring models–Sometimes. Journal of Family Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2007). Kicking the habit: Broad- Business Strategy, 13(2), 100452. ening our horizons by studying family businesses. Journal of Lin, C. M., Chen, C. C. S., Yang, S. Y., & Wang, W. R. (2020). The Management Inquiry, 16(1), 27–30. effects of corporate governance on credit ratings: The role of corporate social responsibility. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56(5), 1093–1112. 1 3 C. Stock et al. Miroshnychenko, I., De Massis, A., Barontini, R., & Testa, F. (2022). Sánchez-Medina, P. S., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2017). Environmental Family firms and environmental performance: A meta-analytic pressure and quality practices in artisanal family businesses: The review. Family Business Review, 35(1), 68–90. mediator role of environmental values. Journal of Cleaner Pro- Muttakin, M. B., & Khan, A. (2014). Determinants of corporate social duction, 143, 145–158. disclosure: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Advances in Schell, S., Wolff, S., & Moog, P. (2020). Contracts and communication Accounting, 30(1), 168–175. among family members: Business succession from a contractual Nadeem, M., Gyapong, E., & Ahmed, A. (2020). Board gender diver- view. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi. or g/10. sity and environmental, social, and economic value creation: 1080/ 00472 778. 2020. 18164 29 Does family ownership matter? Business Strategy and the Envi- Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school ronment, 29(3), 1268–1284. policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136. Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2008). Community social Seckin-Halac, D., Erdener-Acar, E., & Zengin-Karaibrahimoglu, Y. responsibility and its consequences for family business perfor- (2021). Ownership and corporate social responsibility: “The mance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 331–350. power of the female touch.” European Management Journal, O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Rutherford, M. W., & Pollack, J. M. (2010). Exam- 39(6), 695–709. ining the relation between ethical focus and financial perfor - Sekerci, N., Jaballah, J., van Essen, M., & Kammerlander, N. (2022). mance in family firms: An exploratory study. Family Business Investors’ reactions to CSR news in family versus nonfamily Review, 23(4), 310–326. firms: A study on signal (in) credibility. Entrepreneurship Theory Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Jung, R. (2019). Board characteristics and Practice, 46(1), 82–116. and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: Fam- management matter? Journal of Business Research, 103, 23–33. ily businesses’ contribution to the US economy—A framework Palma, M., Lourenço, I. C., & Branco, M. C. (2022). Web-based sus- for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review, tainability reporting by family companies: The role of the richest 9(2), 107–123. European families. Accounting Forum, 46(4), 344–368. Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business stud- Pan, Y., Weng, R., Xu, N., & Chan, K. C. (2018). The role of corporate ies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business philanthropy in family firm succession: A social outreach per - Review, 17(1), 1–36. spective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 88, 423–441. Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmen- Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Thompson, D. (2014). tal strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded companies 309–334. versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business Ethics, Singal, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in the hospitality 125(3), 481–496. and tourism industry: Do family control and financial condition Peake, W., Cooper, D., Fitzgerald, M., & Muske, G. (2017). Family matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, business participation in community social responsibility: The 81–89. moderating effect of gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), Soleimanof, S., Rutherford, M. W., & Webb, J. W. (2018). The inter- 325–343. section of family firms and institutional contexts: A review Preslmayer, C., Kuttner, M., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 31(1), Uncovering the research field of corporate social responsibility 32–53. in family firms: A citation analysis. Journal of Family Business Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Dane, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research Management, 8(2), 169–195. model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, Pütz, L., Schell, S., & Werner, A. (2022). Openness to knowledge: does 12(3), 197–208. corporate social responsibility mediate the relationship between Stock, C., Hossinger, S., Werner, A., Schell, S., & Soluk, J. (2022). familiness and absorptive capacity? Small Business Economics. Corporate social responsibility as a driver of digital innovation in https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 022- 00671-0 SMEs: The mediation effect of absorptive capacity. International Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 14(4–5), 571–601. on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of Sundarasen, S. D., Je-Yen, T., & Rajangam, N. (2016). Board composi- publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An Interna- tion and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. tional Review, 23(3), 184–202. Corporate Governance: THe International Journal of Effective Richards, M., Zellweger, T., & Gond, J. P. (2017). Maintaining moral Board Performance, 16(1), 35–53. legitimacy through worlds and words: An explanation of firms’ Sutton, F. X. (1987). The Ford foundation: The early years. Philan- investment in sustainability certification. Journal of Management thropy, Patronage, Politics, 116, 41–91. Studies, 54(5), 676–710. Swab, R. G., Sherlock, C., Markin, E., & Dibrell, C. (2020). “SEW” Rousseau, M. B., Kellermanns, F., Zellweger, T., & Beck, T. E. (2018). what do we know and where do we go? A review of socioemo- Relationship conflict, family name congruence, and socioemo- tional wealth and a way forward. Family Business Review, 33(4), tional wealth in family firms. Family Business Review, 31(4), 424–445. 397–416. Terlaak, A., Kim, S., & Roh, T. (2018). Not good, not bad: The effect of Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2022). Thirty family control on environmental performance disclosure by busi- years of research in family business journals: Status quo and ness group firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(4), 977–996. future directions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(3), Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodol- 100422. ogy for developing evidence-informed management knowledge Sahasranamam, S., Arya, B., & Sud, M. (2020). Ownership structure by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Asia 14(3), 207–222. Pacific Journal of Management, 37(4), 1165–1192. Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale Samara, G., & Arenas, D. (2017). Practicing fairness in the family busi- development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. ness workplace. Business Horizons, 60(5), 647–655. Uhlaner, L., Berent-Braun, M., Jeurissen, R., & de Wit, G. (2012). Samara, G., Jamali, D., Sierra, V., & Parada, M. J. (2018). Who are Beyond size: Predicting engagement in environmental man- agement practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, the best performers? The environmental social performance of 109(4), 411–429. family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 33–43. 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Uhlaner, L. M., van Goor-Balk, H. A., & Masurel, E. (2004). Family of family vs nonfamily firms. Journal of Business Research, 124, business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch 581–592. firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Yu, A., Ding, H. B., & Chuang, H. M. (2015). Corporate social respon- 11(2), 186–194. sibility performance in family and non-family firms: The per - Van Marrewijk, M. (2013). Concepts and definitions of CSR and cor - spective of socio-emotional wealth. Asian Business & Manage- porate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal ment, 14(5), 383–412. of Business Ethics, 44(1–2), 95–105. Yu, B., Zeng, S., Chen, H., Meng, X., & Tam, C. (2021). Doing more Wagner, M. (2010). Corporate social performance and innovation with and doing better are two different entities: Different patterns of high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business family control and environmental performance. Business Strategy Ethics, 94(4), 581–594. and the Environment, 30(1), 1–20. Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges Zamir, F., & Saeed, A. (2020). Location matters: Impact of geographi- and best practices. Family Business Review, 10(4), 323–337. cal proximity to financial centers on corporate social respon- Weismeier-Sammer, D., Frank, H., & von Schlippe, A. (2013). Untan- sibility (CSR) disclosure in emerging economies. Asia Pacific gling ‘familiness’ A literature review and directions for future Journal of Management, 37(1), 263–295. research. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Zheng, W., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, X. C., & Lin, S. J. (2017). Why do Innovation, 14(3), 165–177. employees have counterproductive work behavior? The role of Welford, R. (2007). Corporate governance and corporate social respon- founder’s Machiavellianism and the corporate culture in China. sibility: Issues for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Management Decision, 55(3), 563–578. Environmental Management, 14(1), 42–51. Zientara, P. (2017). Socioemotional wealth and corporate social Wiklund, J. (2006). Commentary: “Family firms and social responsibil- responsibility: A critical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, ity: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500.” Entrepreneurship 144(1), 185–199. Theory and Practice, 30(6), 803–808. Wu, S., Lin, F., & Wu, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to cost of capital: An empirical study of the Taiwan stock market. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 50, 107–120. Yanez-Araque, B., Hernández, J. P. S. I., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., & Jimenez-Estevez, P. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises: Multigroup analysis 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Business Ethics Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/corporate-social-responsibility-in-family-firms-status-and-future-pVJwOT9sAN

Loading next page...

References (212)

Juyoung Jang, S. Danes (2013)
– A New Business Model : The Emotional Dimension of Organizations
Samuel Adomako, J. Amankwah‐Amoah, A. Danso, Renata Konadu, Samuel Owusu‐Agyei (2019)
Environmental sustainability orientation and performance of family and nonfamily firms
Business Strategy and the Environment
(2017)
Capacity building through social entrepreneurship & CSR initiatives
R La Porta (1999)
10.1111/0022-1082.00115
The Journal of Finance, 54
Laura Madden, A. McMillan, Oneil Harris (2020)
Drivers of selectivity in family firms: Understanding the impact of age and ownership on CSR
Journal of Family Business Strategy
Sohrab Soleimanof, Matthew Rutherford, Justin Webb (2018)
The Intersection of Family Firms and Institutional Contexts: A Review and Agenda for Future Research
Family Business Review, 31
Morten Bennedsen, Margarita Tsoutsoura, Daniel Wolfenzon (2017)
Drivers of Effort: Evidence from Employee Absenteeism
Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance & Governance eJournal
R. Labelle, T. Hafsi, Claude Francoeur, Walid Amar (2018)
Family Firms’ Corporate Social Performance: A Calculated Quest for Socioemotional Wealth
Journal of Business Ethics, 148
Alexandra Dawson, Gianluca Ginesti, Salvatore Sciascia (2020)
Family-related antecedents of business legality: An empirical investigation among Italian family owned SMEs
Journal of Family Business Strategy
Daniela Weismeier-Sammer, H. Frank, Arist Schlippe (2013)
Untangling ‘Familiness’
The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14
Janelle Scott (2009)
The Politics of Venture Philanthropy in Charter School Policy and Advocacy
Educational Policy, 23
Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros, Lázaro Rodríguez‐Ariza, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero (2017)
The mediating effect of ethical codes on the link between family firms and their social performance
Long Range Planning, 50
Duygu Turker (2009)
Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study
Journal of Business Ethics, 85
J. Ward (1997)
Growing the Family Business: Special Challenges and Best Practices
Family Business Review, 10
L. Uhlaner, H.J.M. Goor-Balk, E. Masurel (2004)
Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11
M. Dayan, P. Ng, N. Ndubisi (2019)
Mindfulness, socioemotional wealth, and environmental strategy of family businesses
Business Strategy and the Environment
C Stock (2022)
10.1504/IJEV.2022.127451
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 14
J. Bingham, W. Dyer, Isaac Smith, Greg Adams (2011)
A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms
Journal of Business Ethics, 99
W. Dyer, D. Whetten (2006)
Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30
Ways Forward, R. Swab, Chelsea Sherlock, Erik Markin, Clay Dibrell (2020)
“SEW” What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Review of Socioemotional Wealth and a Way Forward
Family Business Review, 33
Muhammad Nadeem, Ernest Gyapong, Ammad Ahmed (2020)
Board gender diversity and environmental, social, and economic value creation: Does family ownership matter?
Business Strategy and The Environment, 29
J. Daspit, James Chrisman, Triss Ashton, Nicholas Evangelopoulos (2021)
Family Firm Heterogeneity: A Definition, Common Themes, Scholarly Progress, and Directions Forward
Family Business Review, 34
D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart (2003)
Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review
British Journal of Management, 14
J. Astrachan, Claudia Astrachan, Giovanna Campopiano, Massimo Bau’ (2020)
Values, Spirituality and Religion: Family Business and the Roots of Sustainable Ethical Behavior
Journal of Business Ethics, 163
Jianhua Ge, E. Micelotta (2019)
When Does the Family Matter? Institutional pressures and corporate philanthropy in China
Organization Studies, 40
A. Yu, Hung-bin Ding, Hsi-Mei Chung (2015)
Corporate social responsibility performance in family and non-family firms: The perspective of socio-emotional wealth
Asian Business & Management, 14
Eva López-González, Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero, Emma García‐Meca (2019)
Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A contingency approach
Journal of Cleaner Production
R. Dangelico (2017)
What Drives Green Product Development and How do Different Antecedents Affect Market Performance? A Survey of Italian Companies with Eco-Labels
Business Strategy and The Environment, 26
Marcello Mariani, Khowlah Al-Sultan, Alfredo Massis (2021)
Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature review
Journal of Small Business Management, 61
Prihatnolo Amidjaya, A. Widagdo (2019)
Sustainability reporting in Indonesian listed banks
Journal of Applied Accounting Research
M. Rousseau, F. Kellermanns, T. Zellweger, Tammy Beck (2018)
Relationship Conflict, Family Name Congruence, and Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms
Family Business Review, 31
Linda Niehm, Jane Swinney, Nancy Miller (2008)
Community Social Responsibility and Its Consequences for Family Business Performance*1
Journal of Small Business Management, 46
R. Panwar, K. Paul, Erlend Nybakk, E. Hansen, D. Thompson (2014)
The Legitimacy of CSR Actions of Publicly Traded Companies Versus Family-Owned Companies
Journal of Business Ethics, 125
Danny Miller, Isabelle Breton-Miller (2007)
Broadening Our Horizons by Studying Family Businesses
M Bennedsen (2019)
10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.12.001
Journal of Financial Economics, 133
Issam Laguir, Lamia Laguir, J. Elbaz (2016)
Are Family Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises More Socially Responsible Than Nonfamily Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises?
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23
James Cordeiro, G. Profumo, Ilaria Tutore (2020)
Board gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of family and dual‐class majority ownership structures
Business Strategy and The Environment, 29
Junsheng Dou, Emma Su, Song Wang (2019)
When Does Family Ownership Promote Proactive Environmental Strategy? The Role of the Firm’s Long-Term Orientation
Journal of Business Ethics
CHIEN-MING Chen, Magali Delmas, Marvin Lieberman (2014)
Sustainable Certification for Future Generations: The Case of Family Business
S. Danes, Jinhee Lee, K. Stafford, Ramona Kay, Zachary Heck (2008)
INVITED ARTICLE THE EFFECTS OF ETHNICITY, FAMILIES AND CULTURE ON ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPERIENCE: AN EXTENSION OF SUSTAINABLE FAMILY BUSINESS THEORY
Shabir Ahmad, K. Siddiqui, Hoda Aboalsamh (2020)
Family SMEs’ survival: the role of owner family and corporate social responsibility
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27
J. Adams, Armen Taschian, Ted Shore (1996)
Ethics in Family and Non-Family Owned Firms: An Exploratory Study
Family Business Review, 9
Ann Terlaak, Seonghoon Kim, Taewoo Roh (2018)
Not Good, Not Bad: The Effect of Family Control on Environmental Performance Disclosure by Business Group Firms
Journal of Business Ethics, 153
M. Muttakin, Arifur Khan (2014)
Determinants of corporate social disclosure: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh
Advances in Accounting, 30
Dirk Matten, J. Moon (2008)
'Implicit' and 'Explicit' CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility
Academy of Management Review, 33
A. El-Kassar, Walid Elgammal, Josiane Fahed-Sreih (2018)
Engagement of family members, corporate governance and social responsibility in family-owned enterprises
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31
Ivan Miroshnychenko, Alfredo Massis, R. Barontini, F. Testa (2022)
Family Firms and Environmental Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review
Family Business Review, 35
Nicolas Antheaume, Paulette Robic, Dominique Barbelivien (2013)
French family business and longevity: Have they been conducting sustainable development policies before it became a fashion?
Business History, 55
Kerstin Fehre, Florian Weber (2019)
Why Some are More Equal: Family Firm Heterogeneity and the Effect on Management's Attention to CSR
International Strategy & Policy eJournal
Giovanna Campopiano, F. Rinaldi, Salvatore Sciascia, A. Massis (2019)
Family and non-family women on the board of directors: Effects on corporate citizenship behavior in family-controlled fashion firms
Journal of Cleaner Production
Margaret Fitzgerald, G. Haynes, H. Schrank, S. Danes (2010)
Socially Responsible Processes of Small Family Business Owners: Exploratory Evidence from the National Family Business Survey
Journal of Small Business Management, 48
Benito Yáñez-Araque, J. Hernández, Santiago Gutiérrez-Broncano, Pedro Jiménez-Estévez (2020)
Corporate social responsibility in micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises: Multigroup analysis of family vs. nonfamily firms
Journal of Business Research
T. Habbershon, M. Williams (1999)
A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms
Family Business Review, 12
Jaemin Kim, S. Fairclough, Clay Dibrell (2017)
Attention, Action, and Greenwash in Family-Influenced Firms? Evidence From Polluting Industries
Organization & Environment, 30
M. Agostino, S. Ruberto (2021)
Environment-friendly practices: Family versus non-family firms
Journal of Cleaner Production
Claudia Arena, Giovanna Michelon (2018)
A matter of control or identity? Family firms' environmental reporting decisions along the corporate life cycle
Business Strategy and the Environment
Ben-jiang Ma, Yanlin Wang, Zhifang Zhou, Yung-Yee Lai, Zhongmin Zhou, M. Bashir (2021)
Can controlling family involvement promote firms to fulfill environmental responsibilities?—Evidence from China
Managerial and Decision Economics
Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero, Lázaro Rodríguez‐Ariza, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez (2017)
The strength of the board on sustainability assurance decisions: The moderating role of family business
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24
D. Seckin-Halac, Ece Erdener-Acar, Yasemin Zengin‐Karaibrahimoglu (2021)
Ownership and corporate social responsibility: "The power of the female touch"
European Management Journal
S El Ghoul (2016)
10.1016/j.jbankfin.2016.08.008
Journal of Banking & Finance, 73
Xing-qiang Du (2014)
Is Corporate Philanthropy Used as Environmental Misconduct Dressing? Evidence from Chinese Family-Owned Firms
Journal of Business Ethics, 129
Xing-qiang Du, Quan Zeng, Yingying Chang (2017)
To be philanthropic when being international: Evidence from Chinese family firms
Journal of Management & Organization, 24
J. Elkington (1998)
Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business
Environmental Quality Management, 8
Cinzia Lorandini (2015)
Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: the Salvadori Firm of Trento, 1660s – 1880s
Business History, 57
N. Bhatnagar, Pramodita Sharma, K. Ramachandran (2020)
Spirituality and Corporate Philanthropy in Indian Family Firms: An Exploratory Study
Journal of Business Ethics, 163
Laura Cabeza-Garcíaa, María Sacristán-Navarrob, Silvia Gómez-Ansónc (2017)
Family involvement and corporate social responsibility disclosure
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8
R. Porta, Florencio Silanes, Andrei Shleifer (1998)
Corporate Ownership Around the World
Corporate Finance and Organizations eJournal
Olivier Meier, Guillaume Schier (2020)
CSR and Family CEO: The Moderating Role of CEO’s Age
Journal of Business Ethics, 174
P. Biswas, Helen Roberts, R. Whiting (2019)
The impact of family vs non-family governance contingencies on CSR reporting in Bangladesh
Management Decision
Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero, Lázaro Rodríguez‐Ariza, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros (2017)
Corporate social responsibility disclosure and information asymmetry: the role of family ownership
Review of Managerial Science, 12
Yoon Choi, S. Han, Yonghyun Kwon (2019)
CSR activities and internal capital markets: Evidence from Korean business groups
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal
J. Block (2008)
Family Management, Family Ownership, and Downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 Firms
Family Business Review, 23
S. Danes, K. Brewton (2012)
Follow the Capital: Benefits of Tracking Family Capital across Family and Business Systems: Undiscovered Approaches, Unique Perspectives, and
Wenzhi Zheng, Y. Wu, Xiao Chen, S. Lin (2017)
Why do employees have counterproductive work behavior? The role of founder’s Machiavellianism and the corporate culture in China
Management Decision, 55
M. Izzo, M. Ciaburri (2018)
Why do they do that? Motives and dimensions of family firms’ CSR engagement
Social Responsibility Journal
Ernest O’Boyle, Matthew Rutherford, J. Pollack (2010)
Examining the Relation Between Ethical Focus and Financial Performance in Family Firms: An Exploratory Study
Family Business Review, 23
S. Sahasranamam, Bindu Arya, M. Sud (2019)
Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
A. Kallmuenzer, W. Nikolakis, M. Peters, Johanna Zanon (2018)
Trade-offs between dimensions of sustainability: exploratory evidence from family firms in rural tourism regions
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26
K Kim (2020)
10.1007/s10551-019-04152-5
Journal of Business Ethics
Naciye Sekerci, Jamil Jaballah, Marc Essen, Nadine Kammerlander (2021)
Investors’ Reactions to CSR News in Family Versus Nonfamily Firms: A Study on Signal (In)credibility
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46
Peter Jaskiewicz, W. Dyer (2017)
Addressing the Elephant in the Room: Disentangling Family Heterogeneity to Advance Family Business Research
Family Business Review, 30
Victor Cui, Shujun Ding, Mingzhi Liu, Zhenyu Wu (2016)
Revisiting the Effect of Family Involvement on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Behavioral Agency Perspective
Journal of Business Ethics, 152
Hüseyin Doluca, M. Wagner, J. Block (2018)
Sustainability and Environmental Behaviour in Family Firms: A Longitudinal Analysis of Environment‐Related Activities, Innovation and Performance
Business Strategy and The Environment, 27
Saim Kashmiri, V. Mahajan (2013)
Beating the recession blues: Exploring the link between family ownership, strategic marketing behavior and firm performance during recessions
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31
KM Eisenhardt (1989)
10.2307/258191
Academy of Management Review, 14
M. Richards, T. Zellweger, Jean‐Pascal Gond (2017)
Maintaining Moral Legitimacy Through Worlds and Words: An Explanation of Firms' Investment in Sustainability Certification
CSR & Management Practice eJournal
J. Kotlar, Alfredo Massis (2013)
Goal Setting in Family Firms: Goal Diversity, Social Interactions, and Collective Commitment to Family–Centered Goals
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37
Won‐yong Oh, Y. Chang, Rami Jung (2019)
Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in management matter?
Journal of Business Research
Caroline Preslmayer, M. Kuttner, Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller (2018)
Uncovering the research field of corporate social responsibility in family firms: a citation analysis
Journal of Family Business Management
Pramodita Sharma (2004)
An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future
Family Business Review, 17
Manisha Singal (2014)
Corporate social responsibility in the hospitality and tourism industry: Do family control and financial condition matter?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36
Anna Höchstädter, B. Scheck (2015)
What’s in a Name: An Analysis of Impact Investing Understandings by Academics and Practitioners
Journal of Business Ethics, 132
Herman Aguinis, A. Glavas (2012)
What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility
Journal of Management, 38
J. Hsueh (2018)
Governance Structure and the Credibility Gap: Experimental Evidence on Family Businesses’ Sustainability Reporting
Journal of Business Ethics, 153
M. Kuttner, Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmller (2018)
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN FAMILY FIRMS - STATUS QUO AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
International Journal of Biological Sciences, 18
S. Ghoul, O. Guedhami, Helen Wang, C. Kwok (2016)
Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility
Journal of Banking and Finance, 73
Bari Bendell (2021)
Environmental investment decisions of family firms—An analysis of competitor and government influence
Business Strategy and the Environment
S. Chiu, Mark Sharfman (2011)
Legitimacy, Visibility, and the Antecedents of Corporate Social Performance: An Investigation of the Instrumental Perspective
Journal of Management, 37
Pramodita Sharma, Sanjay Sharma (2011)
Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms
Business Ethics Quarterly, 21
Michael Jensen, W. Meckling (1976)
Theory of the Firm
Mingzhi Liu, Yulin Shi, Craig Wilson, Zhenyu Wu (2017)
Does Family Involvement Explain Why Corporate Social Responsibility Affects Earnings Management?
Organizations & Markets: Policies & Processes eJournal
Jiawen Chen, Linlin Liu (2022)
Family firms, national culture and corporate social performance: a meta-analysis
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management
M. Gallo (2004)
The Family Business and Its Social Responsibilities
Family Business Review, 17
C. Cruz, Martín Larraza-Kintana, Lucía Garcés-Galdeano, P. Berrone (2014)
Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38
Julie Dekker, Tim Hasso (2014)
Environmental Performance Focus in Private Family Firms: The Role of Social Embeddedness
Journal of Business Ethics, 136
Christian Faller, Dodo Knyphausen‐Aufseß (2018)
Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? A Literature Review of Theories and Recent Empirical Findings
Journal of Business Ethics, 150
G. Samara, D. Jamali, V. Sierra, M. Parada (2017)
Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9
M. Koiranen (2002)
Over 100 Years of Age But Still Entrepreneurially Active in Business: Exploring the Values and Family Characteristics of Old Finnish Family Firms
Family Business Review, 15
P. Rovelli, Marcos Ferasso, A. Massis, S. Kraus (2021)
Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions
Journal of Family Business Strategy
(1987)
The Ford foundation: The early years. Philanthropy, Patronage
Kihun Kim, Zulfiquer Haider, Zhenyu Wu, Junsheng Dou (2019)
Corporate Social Performance of Family Firms: A Place-Based Perspective in the Context of Layoffs
Journal of Business Ethics
MC Jensen (1976)
10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Journal of Financial Economics, 3
P. Sánchez-Medina, René Díaz‐Pichardo (2017)
Environmental pressure and quality practices in artisanal family businesses: The mediator role of environmental values
Journal of Cleaner Production, 143
Sabrina Schell, Arndt Werner, S. Hossinger, Christoph Stock, Jonas Soluk (2022)
Corporate Social Responsibility as a Driver of Digital Innovation in SMEs: The Mediation Effect of Absorptive Capacity
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing
T. Zellweger, Miriam Bird, Walter Weber (2015)
Global Family Business Index
Melissa Shanker, J. Astrachan (1996)
Myths and Realities: Family Businesses' Contribution to the US Economy— A Framework for Assessing Family Business Statistics
Family Business Review, 9
James Cordeiro, A. Galeazzo, T. Shaw, R. Veliyath, M. Nandakumar (2018)
Ownership influences on corporate social responsibility in the Indian context
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35
Justin Craig, Clay Dibrell (2006)
The Natural Environment, Innovation, and Firm Performance: A Comparative Study
Family Business Review, 19
Mara Bergamaschi, K. Randerson (2016)
The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social responsibility
Futures, 75
R. Welford (2007)
Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: issues for Asia
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14
Esra Memili, H. Fang, James Chrisman, A. Massis (2015)
The impact of small- and medium-sized family firms on economic growth
Small Business Economics, 45
M. Palma, I. Lourenço, M. Branco (2021)
Web-based sustainability reporting by family companies: the role of the richest European families
Accounting Forum, 46
Lorenzo Maso, R. Basco, T. Bassetti, N. Lattanzi (2020)
Family ownership and environmental performance: The mediation effect of human resource practices
Business Strategy and The Environment, 29
W. Handler (1989)
Methodological Issues and Considerations in Studying Family Businesses
Family Business Review, 2
Byungjun Yu, S. Zeng, Hongquan Chen, X. Meng, Chiming Tam (2020)
Doing more and doing better are two different entities: Different patterns of family control and environmental performance
Business Strategy and The Environment
(2003)
Family Businesses Dominate
Family Business Review, 16
Xing-qiang Du, Hongmei Pei, Yingjie Du, Quan Zeng (2015)
Media coverage, family ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: evidence from China
Journal of Management & Organization, 22
Laura Pütz, Sabrina Schell, Arndt Werner (2022)
Openness to knowledge: does corporate social responsibility mediate the relationship between familiness and absorptive capacity?
Small Business Economics, 60
Cristina Aragón-Amonarriz, A. Arredondo, Cristina Iturrioz-Landart (2019)
How Can Responsible Family Ownership be Sustained Across Generations? A Family Social Capital Approach
Journal of Business Ethics
Yue Pan, Ruoyu Weng, Nianhang Xu, Kam Chan (2018)
The role of corporate philanthropy in family firm succession: A social outreach perspective
Journal of Banking and Finance, 88
M. Kuttner, Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmüller, C. Mitter (2020)
Corporate social responsibility in Austrian family firms: socioemotional wealth and stewardship insights from a qualitative approach
Journal of Family Business Management
P. Zientara (2017)
Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Analysis
Journal of Business Ethics, 144
James Chrisman, J. Chua, Allison Pearson, Tim Barnett (2012)
Family Involvement, Family Influence, and Family–Centered Non–Economic Goals in Small Firms
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36
D. Dimov (2017)
Towards a qualitative understanding of human capital in entrepreneurship research
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23
Johan Wiklund (2006)
Commentary: “Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30
J. Chua, James Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma (1999)
Defining the Family Business by Behavior
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23
Massimo Bau’, Joern Block, Allan Cruz, L. Naldi (2021)
Bridging locality and internationalization – A research agenda on the sustainable development of family firms
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33
Nai Lamb, F. Butler (2018)
The Influence of Family Firms and Institutional Owners on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance
Business & Society, 57
Esra Memili, Pankaj Patel, Burcu Koç, I. Yazicioğlu (2020)
The interplay between socioemotional wealth and family firm psychological capital in influencing firm performance in hospitality and tourism
Tourism Management Perspectives
Farah Zamir, Abubakr Saeed (2018)
Location matters: Impact of geographical proximity to financial centers on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in emerging economies
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37
RE Freeman, S Dmytriyev (2017)
Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other
Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1
Allan Cruz (2020)
There is no need to shout to be heard! The paradoxical nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in a Latin American family small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 38
P. Berrone, C. Cruz, L. Gómez‐Mejía, Martín Larraza-Kintana (2010)
Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55
Isabelle Breton-Miller, Danny Miller (2021)
Family businesses under COVID-19: Inspiring models – Sometimes
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13
Bill Rees, T. Rodionova (2015)
The Influence of Family Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility: An International Analysis of Publicly Listed Companies
Corporate Governance: Governance of Special Types of Firms eJournal
Hermann Frank, Alexander Kessler, T. Rusch, Julia Suess-Reyes, Daniela Weismeier-Sammer (2017)
Capturing the Familiness of Family Businesses: Development of the Family Influence Familiness Scale (FIFS)
Organizations & Markets: Formal & Informal Structures eJournal
J Jang (2013)
10.1515/erj-2012-0020
Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3
Bengi Ertuna, Mine Karatas‐Ozkan, S. Yamak (2019)
Diffusion of sustainability and CSR discourse in hospitality industry
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
A. Calabrò, Mariangela Vecchiarini, J. Gast, Giovanna Campopiano, A. Massis, S. Kraus (2018)
Innovation in Family Firms: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research
POL: Other International Strategy & Policy (Topic)
M. Delmas, Olivier Gergaud (2014)
Sustainable Certification for Future Generations
Family Business Review, 27
FX Sutton (1987)
The Ford foundation: The early years
Philanthropy, Patronage, Politics, 116
Bruno Amann, J. Jaussaud, Isabelle Martinez (2012)
Corporate social responsibility in Japan: Family and non-family business differences and determinants
Asian Business & Management, 11
Nai Lamb, F. Butler, Philip Roundy (2017)
Family firms and corporate social responsibility: exploring “concerns”
Journal of Strategy and Management, 10
K. Eisenhardt (1989)
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Academy of Management Review, 14
Peter Jaskiewicz, James Combs, Kristen Shanine, K. Kacmar (2017)
Introducing the Family: A Review of Family Science with Implications for Management Research
The Academy of Management Annals, 11
Mark Blodgett, C. Dumas, A. Zanzi (2011)
Emerging Trends in Global Ethics: A Comparative Study of U.S. and International Family Business Values
Journal of Business Ethics, 99
M. Wagner (2010)
Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis
Journal of Business Ethics, 94
P. Marqués, P. Presas, A. Simon (2014)
The Heterogeneity of Family Firms in CSR Engagement
Family Business Review, 27
Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, Julia Martín‐Moreno, S. Khan, Nazim Hussain (2020)
Socio‐emotional wealth and corporate responses to environmental hostility: Are family firms more stakeholder oriented?
Business Strategy and The Environment
B Cuadrado-Ballesteros, L Rodríguez-Ariza, I-M García-Sánchez, J Martínez-Ferrero (2017)
The mediating effect of ethical codes on the link between family firms and their social performance
Innovation and Sustainability, 50
J. Graafland (2020)
Family business ownership and cleaner production: Moderation by company size and family management
Journal of Cleaner Production, 255
A. Massis, J. Kotlar (2014)
The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5
K. Stafford, K. Duncan, S. Dane, M. Winter (1999)
A Research Model of Sustainable Family Businesses
Family Business Review, 12
Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros, Lázaro Rodríguez‐Ariza, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez (2015)
The role of independent directors at family firms in relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures
International Business Review, 24
James Chrisman, J. Chua, L. Steier (2005)
Sources and Consequences of Distinctive Familiness: An Introduction
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29
(2021)
Sustainability report 2021
(2001)
Green paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Commission of the European Communities
Joern Block, M. Wagner (2014)
Ownership versus management effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large family and founder firms
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5
RE Freeman (2010)
10.1017/CBO9780511815768
S. Sundarasen, Tan Je-Yen, Nakiran Rajangam (2016)
Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market
Corporate Governance, 16
Yi-Chun Huang, Hung-bin Ding, Ming-Rea Kao (2009)
Salient stakeholder voices: Family business and green innovation adoption
Journal of Management & Organization, 15
Saim Kashmiri, V. Mahajan (2010)
What's in a name?: An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27
Saim Kashmiri, V. Mahajan (2013)
A Rose by Any Other Name: Are Family Firms Named After Their Founding Families Rewarded More for Their New Product Introductions?
Journal of Business Ethics, 124
W. Peake, Danielle Cooper, Margaret Fitzgerald, Glenn Muske (2015)
Family Business Participation in Community Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effect of Gender
Journal of Business Ethics, 142
L. Uhlaner, M. Berent-Braun, R. Jeurissen, G. Wit (2011)
Beyond Size: Predicting Engagement in Environmental Management Practices of Dutch SMEs
Journal of Business Ethics, 109
Anna Biscotti, E. D'Amico, F. Monge (2018)
Do environmental management systems affect the knowledge management process? The impact on the learning evolution and the relevance of organisational context
J. Knowl. Manag., 22
Ari Kim, Youkyoung Lee (2018)
Family firms and corporate social performance: evidence from Korean firms
Asia Pacific Business Review, 24
M. Maung, Danny Miller, Zhenyang Tang, Xiaowei Xu (2020)
Value-Enhancing Social Responsibility: Market Reaction to Donations by Family vs. Non-family Firms with Religious CEOs
Journal of Business Ethics, 163
Giovanna Campopiano, Alfredo Massis, F. Chirico (2014)
Firm Philanthropy in Small and Mediun-Sized Family Firms: The Effects of Family Involvement in Ownership and Management
ERPN: Family Business (Topic)
A. Crane, Dirk Matten, Laura Spence (2013)
Corporate Social Responsibility in a Global Context
B. Parmar, R. Freeman, J. Harrison, A. Wicks, L. Purnell, Simone Colle (2010)
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art
Nishanthi Kariyapperuma, Eva Collins (2021)
Family logics and environmental sustainability: A study of the New Zealand wine industry
Business Strategy and The Environment
L. Gómez‐Mejía, Katalin Haynes, Manuel Núñez-Nickel, Kathy Jacobson, José Moyano-Fuentes (2007)
Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills
Administrative Science Quarterly, 52
Isabelle Breton-Miller, David Miller (2016)
Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7
Shih-Wei Wu, Fengyi Lin, Chia-ming Wu (2014)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Cost of Capital: An Empirical Study of the Taiwan Stock Market
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 50
V. Iyer, Ayalew Lulseged (2013)
Does family status impact US firms' sustainability reporting?
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4
Sabrina Schell, Sven Wolff, Petra Moog (2020)
Contracts and communication among family members: Business succession from a contractual view
Journal of Small Business Management, 61
B. Giner, Amparo Ruiz (2020)
Family entrepreneurial orientation as a driver of longevity in family firms: a historic analysis of the ennobled Trenor family and Trenor y Cía
Business History, 64
G. Lumpkin, Keith Brigham (2011)
Long–Term Orientation and Intertemporal Choice in Family Firms
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35
T. Hernes, T. Bakken (2003)
Implications of Self-Reference: Niklas Luhmann’s Autopoiesis and Organization Theory
Organization Studies, 24
J. McGuire, S. Dow, Bakr Ibrahim (2012)
All in the family? Social performance and corporate governance in the family firm
Journal of Business Research, 65
Maximilian Lude, Reinhard Prügl (2020)
Experimental studies in family business research
Journal of Family Business Strategy
G. Samara, Daniel Arenas (2017)
Practicing fairness in the family business workplace
Business Horizons, 60
Giovanna Campopiano, A. Massis (2014)
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Content Analysis in Family and Non-family Firms
Journal of Business Ethics, 129
(2021)
Academic journal guide. Chartered Association of Business Schools
Markus Dick, E. Wagner, Helmut Pernsteiner (2020)
Founder-Controlled Family Firms, Overconfidence, and Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement: Evidence From Survey Data
Family Business Review, 34
Alexander Dahlsrud (2008)
How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15
M. Marrewijk (2013)
Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion
Journal of Business Ethics, 44
Danny Miller, Isabelle Breton-Miller (2007)
Kicking the Habit
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16
A. Abeysekera, Chitru Fernando (2018)
Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Corporate Shareholder Responsibility: A Family Firm Perspective
Socially Responsible Investment eJournal
J. Graafland, B. Ven, N. Stoffele (2003)
Strategies and Instruments for Organising CSR by Small and Large Businesses in the Netherlands
Journal of Business Ethics, 47
I. Chadwick, Alexandra Dawson (2018)
Women leaders and firm performance in family businesses: An examination of financial and nonfinancial outcomes
Journal of Family Business Strategy
María Déniz, M. Suárez (2005)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Family Business in Spain
Journal of Business Ethics, 56
Yannick Bammens, Paul Hünermund (2020)
Nonfinancial Considerations in Eco‐Innovation Decisions: The Role of Family Ownership and Reputation Concerns
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37
Morgane Fritz, Salomée Ruel, A. Kallmuenzer, R. Harms (2021)
Sustainability management in supply chains: the role of familiness
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173
J. Ballantyne, J. Loeser (2021)
Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty
Anesthesiology
C. Cruz, Rachida Justo, Martín Larraza-Kintana, Lucía Garcés-Galdeano (2018)
When Do Women Make a Better Table? Examining the Influence of Women Directors on Family Firm’s Corporate Social Performance
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43
AP Abeysekera (2020)
10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.05.003
Journal of Corporate Finance, 61
CM Lin (2020)
10.1080/1540496X.2018.1512486
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56
Joern Block, M. Wagner (2014)
The Effect of Family Ownership on Different Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Large US Firms: Effect of Family Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility
Business Strategy and The Environment, 23
Yu-Lin Chen, Hsin-Yao Cheng (2020)
Public family businesses and corporate social responsibility assurance: The role of mimetic pressures
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 39
D. Maggioni, G. Santangelo (2017)
Local Environmental Non-Profit Organizations and the Green Investment Strategies of Family Firms
Ecological Economics, 138

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN: 0167-4544
eISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05382-4
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This systematic literature review contributes to the increasing interest regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in family firms—a research field that has developed considerably in the last few years. It now provides the opportunity to take a holistic view on the relationship dynamics—i.e., drivers, activities, outcomes, and contextual influences—of family firms with CSR, thus enabling a more coherent organization of current research and a sounder understanding of the phenomenon. To conceptualize the research field, we analyzed 122 peer-reviewed articles published in highly ranked journals identifying the main issues examined. The results clearly show a lack of research regarding CSR outcomes in family firms. Although considered increasingly crucial in family firm research, a study investigating family outcomes (e.g., family community status, family emotional well-being), as opposed to firm outcomes, is missing. This literature review outlines the current state of research and contributes to the actual debate on CSR in family firms by discussing how family firms can use CSR activities as strategic management tools. Moreover, our analysis shows a black box indicating how CSR links different antecedents and outcomes. The black box is signic fi ant since r fi ms generally need to know where to allocate their scarce resources to generate the best outcomes. We identify nine research questions based on these findings, which we hope will inspire future research. Keywords Systematic Literature Review · Family Firms · Corporate Social Responsibility · Sustainable Family Business Theory · Antecedents · Outcomes Introduction than 90% (International Family Enterprise Research Acad- emy, 2003). Many family r fi ms have been operating success- Family firms are the most common form of business organi- fully for generations—some for more than a century (Ahmad zation in the world economy (La Porta et al., 1999; Rovelli et al., 2020; Koiranen, 2002; Lorandini, 2015). As a result, et al., 2022). Although the relative size of the family firm they not only contribute enormously to global economic sector differs from nation to nation, in most countries, at prosperity, are responsible for a large number of jobs (Solei- least 50% of the business population is made up of family manof et al., 2018) and innovation drivers (Calabrò et al., firms, and in some countries, e.g., Brazil, Italy, USA, more 2019) but also shape the values and behavior of national economies (Memili et al., 2015). Chua et al., (1999, p. 25) define a family firm as “a busi- * Arndt Werner ness governed and/or managed with the intention to shape [email protected] and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant Christoph Stock coalition controlled by members of the same family or a [email protected] small number of families in a manner that is potentially Laura Pütz sustainable across generations of the family or families.” [email protected] Reduced to its very core, a family firm forms a unity between Sabrina Schell the two subsystems, family and firm (Danes et al., 2008; [email protected] Frank et al., 2017; Stafford et al., 1999), meaning that with University of Siegen, Unteres Schloß 3, 57076 Siegen, growing overlap of both subsystems, the family and its fam- Germany ily members become increasingly linked to the company, and Institute for New Work, Bern University of Applied Sciences, vice versa (Izzo & Ciaburri, 2018; Rousseau et al., 2018). Brückenstrasse 73, 3005 Bern, Switzerland Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 C. Stock et al. Since the relationship between family members and the of its supplier management (Kumar & Vaz, 2017). In this firm cannot be separated as easily as between non-family context, however, it is essential to note that the many good executives and the firm, the owning family influences the deeds of small and medium-sized family firms making firm’s operations, culture, and social behavior (Chrisman up the majority of the world’s business population stay et al., 2005; Daspit et al., 2021). Thus, family firm research unnoticed by the general public, as these firms tend not states that most owning families have a strong interest in to publicize their good deeds (see, e.g., Déniz & Suárez, ensuring that their firm not only does well financially but is 2005; Discua Cruz, 2020; Niehm et al., 2008; Peake et al., also perceived as valuable by society since the firm’s reputa- 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Given the severe social and tion is closely linked to that society (Giner & Ruiz, 2020; environmental problems our world faces, it is crucial to Handler, 1989; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011; Yanez-Araque understand what does or will motivate this group of firms et al., 2021). Therefore, research argues that family firms to engage in CSR. conduct corporate social responsibility (CSR)—meaning From the literature, we note that family firms imple- that they “[…] integrate social and environmental concerns menting CSR have significantly more benefits compared in their business operations and in their interaction with to non-family firms (e.g., Antheaume et al., 2013; Niehm their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission of et al., 2008; Panwar et al., 2014) and that family firms the European Communities, 2001, p. 6)—not only to build with a higher overlap of family and firm will conduct more a competitive advantage by building superior stakeholder CSR (e.g., Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010, 2014a; Uhlaner relationships (Bendell, 2022; Bingham et al., 2011; El- et al., 2004). Following this line of thought, we assume Kassar et al., 2018) but also to enhance the public image of that when the family and firm subsystems overlap, the the owning family which is closely related to the image of owning family will transfer family resources (e.g., finan- the firm (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Zientara, 2017). cial, human, or social capital) to the firm, which they— Although this also applies to other shareholder primacy rela- at least partially—will invest in CSR activities such as tionships, Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß (2018) found involving themselves in environmental concerns; provid- that CSR’s perceived value seems higher than average for ing improved working conditions; supporting non-profit family ownership. organizations; being involved in local community projects Block and Wagner (2014a) found in an analysis of the (Turker, 2009), thereby generating both firm and family S&P 500 that even large, publicly-listed companies with outcomes. a high proportion of family ownership are more likely to Research on CSR in family firms has increased signifi- adopt CSR than those with less family ownership. Even cantly over the last few years, and the related research field is family-owned firms that are not considered responsible growing (Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2018; Kuttner players, such as Walmart (Walton family) or Ford (Ford & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018; Mariani et al., 2021; Pres- family), try to give something back to society through lmayer et al., 2018). Due to the variety of studies, the oppor- foundations such as the Walton Family Foundation or the tunity has come to synthesize the current state of research Ford Foundation (Scott, 2009; Sutton, 1987)—admittedly, so that future research can depart from a common under- not necessarily through altruistic motives. The Sackler standing. We therefore intent to provide a holistic view of family—founders of Purdue Pharma and Mundipharma the research field’s peculiarities offers; i.e., specific drivers and accused of being responsible for the opioid epidemic (antecedents), activities, results (outcomes) and contextual in the USA, and cited in 1600 lawsuits—used reputation factors of CSR in family firms. Such a framework would laundering and donations to museums and universities to help better contextualize existing research and provide guid- try and redeem their name and un-tarnish their reputation ance for the further development of the research field. Con- (Ballantyne & Loeser, 2021). So, although family firms sequently, we pose the following research questions: are not necessarily more socially responsible or even ethi- cal than non-family firms, the research shows that if an (1) Which antecedents drive a family firm’s corporate owning family is involved in the business, compared to a social responsibility? non-family-owned firm, it will be more inclined to conduct (2) Which outcomes do family firms realize by conducting CSR for reputational reasons (García-Sánchez et al., 2021; corporate social responsibility? Palma et al., 2022; Seckin-Halac et al., 2021). Multina- (3) Which of the family firm’s corporate social responsibil- tional corporation conglomerates such as those of Rupert ity antecedents and outcomes correspond and are the Murdoch and the Koch brothers have caused irreparable resources used effectively to achieve the intended out- damage to the climate movement and use CSR to attempt comes? to green-wash their policies. Bosch, on the other hand, as a large, 100% family-owned firm, is considered a pre- dominantly socially responsible player, especially in terms 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… To study this phenomenon, we decided to examine, syn- identify subsequent lacunae. We then present an agenda for thesize, and systemize the growing body of research on fam- future research regarding CSR in family firms, deriving nine ily firms’ CSR activities identifying the CSR antecedents research questions using our SFBT-based theoretical frame- and outcomes in family firms. Following Tranfield et al. work. Finally, we discuss our findings and provide theoreti- (2003) systematic literature review approach, we analyzed cal and practical implications based on our results. 122 peer-reviewed research articles regarding CSR in fam- ily firms, applying our theoretical framework inspired by Stafford et al. (1999) Sustainable Family Business Theory Theoretical Framework (SFBT). The SFBT draws from the systems theory and a resource-based view assuming that the specific behavior of The SFBT draws from the systems theory and a resource- a family firm system emerges from the interaction of its sub- based view assuming that the specific behavior of a family systems (i.e., family and firm) and the associated resource firm system emerges from the interaction of its subsystems transaction between the two. Therefore, our theoretical (i.e., family and firm). This subsystem dynamic differentiates model builds on the existing research literature offering a family firms from non-family firms. The family subsystem critical analysis of family and firm antecedents and out- uses its resources to achieve its family-related goals, which comes of CSR and guidance for future research regarding can be subjective (e.g., emotional well-being) and objective the phenomenon’s essence. (e.g., financial well-being). The firm subsystem also uses Consequently, we contribute to a better understanding of its resources, independent of the family, to achieve its busi- CSR in family firms. Firstly, our literature analysis reveals ness goals (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 1999). Both a pattern showing that family resources integrated into the subsystems interact, enabling both firm and family to benefit firm through family influence increase the firm’s probability from each other’s resource base. of conducting CSR activities. Most researchers have found Although both are independent systems, the subsystems that family firms can use CSR as a strategic tool to obtain overlap in family firms (Frank et al., 2017). The extent of favorable outcomes (e.g., Adomako et al., 2019; Craig & this overlap between the family and firm systems varies: In Dibrell, 2006; Lamb et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2014; Zientara, family firms where the separation of family and firm is pre- 2017) illustrating that family influence within a firm should dominant, there is little overlap. Conversely, in family firms not necessarily be seen as a liability but as a strategic asset. where the overlap is high, the extent of the interface of the Secondly, the literature shows that current research often family and firm subsystems is significant (Bergamaschi & suffers from a misalignment between empirical research and Randerson, 2016). The more the two subsystems overlap, theory. The prevailing assumption is that family objectives the more likely the owning family will attempt to influence drive family firm CSR activities (Preslmayer et al., 2018), the firm’s management (Astrachan et al., 2020; Chadwick & thereby obtaining family and firm outcomes, whereas fam- Dawson, 2018; Chua et al., 1999; Kuttner et al., 2021; Meier ily firm CSR outcome-related studies only examine firm & Schier, 2021; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996; Sharma, 2004). outcomes, not family and firm outcomes. Although there is Most research is related to non-family firms (Miller & much theorizing about family outcomes playing a signic fi ant Le Breton-Miller, 2007). Non-family firms are not driven role in family firm management, we could not identify any by trans-generational orientation or socioemotional wealth empirically-related findings. (SEW), which makes them more flexible since they do not Thirdly, current research does not identify which family have to consider emotional or generational aspects in their firm antecedents are linked to which family firm outcomes strategies. SEW explains the emotional needs of an owning by which CSR activities. Our literature analysis reveals that family, such as identity, the ability to exercise family influ- family firms can benefit greatly from CSR by generating ence, and the perpetuation of the family dynasty (Gómez- both firm and family outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial for Mejía et al., 2007). Non-family firms are not bound to a family firms to understand how and where to allocate their particular management pool and can be driven by short-run resources to achieve optimal results. To clarify CSR’s cata- objectives, maximizing profits quarterly. Also, non-family lytic role in family firms and to enable family firms to deploy and publicly-listed firms may have a more ‘democratic’ own- their resources for appropriate CSR activities constructively, ership and are more visible (Blodgett et al., 2011; Cruz et al., we recommend that future research opens this black box and 2019; International Family Enterprise Research Academy, focuses on the particular CSR activities’ mediating effect on 2003; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2007). family firm antecedents and family firm outcomes. Most researchers have found that where CSR is con- The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: We cerned, family firms behave differently to non-family discuss our literature review’s theoretical framework and firms (Cabeza-García et al., 2017; Cuadrado-Ballesteros describe the method used to establish the review’s arti- et al., 2017; El Ghoul et al., 2016; Fehre & Weber, 2019; cle samples. We ascertain the current research status and Izzo & Ciaburri, 2018) showing that family firms conduct 1 3 C. Stock et al. more CSR activities than non-family firms (Faller and zu & Ruiz, 2020; Handler, 1989; Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011; Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2018). The owning family provides Yanez-Araque et al., 2021). the firm with a particular set of family resources: financial, Family firms are usually trans-generationally oriented human, or social capital to pursue its personal goals within and, therefore, strive to preserve family or firm outcomes so the firm (Pütz et al., 2022; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013). the next generation may benefit (Bammens & Hünermund, Familiness describes the family resources integrated within 2020; Memili et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2018). By applying the the firm and is “the unique bundle of resources a particular SFBT (Stafford et al., 1999) to our research questions, we firm has because of the system interaction between the fam- created a conceptual framework (see Fig. 1 below) divid- ily, its individual members, and the business.” (Habbershon ing family firm CSR antecedents and outcomes into either & Williams, 1999, p. 11). Familiness is available regardless the family or the firm subsystem. While family antecedents of the market situation (Frank et al., 2017) and can enable emerge from the family subsystem, firm antecedents emerge a family firm to overcome internal and external disruptions from the firm subsystem. In terms of outcomes, the fam- (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 1999). ily subsystem profits from the family outcomes, while the Family firm research theorizes that family firms with firm subsystem profits from firm outcomes. The more the significant levels of familiness combined with the firms’ two subsystems overlap, the greater the interdependencies resources will be able to achieve increased performance between family and firm antecedents or outcomes. We also levels (Chrisman et al., 2005; Pütz et al., 2022; Weismeier- include a loopback from the family firm outcomes to the Sammer et al., 2013). The research literature shows that family firm antecedents since we believe that the outcomes family firms have higher CSR levels (e.g., Dyer & Whetten, from today can be the antecedents of tomorrow. 2006; Liu et al., 2017; Singal, 2014), and we propose that Following Elkington’s (1998) triple-bottom-line approach this phenomenon is mainly rooted in the familiness effect that states sustainable development must take place on a where family resources (i.e., financial, human, and social different dimension, we classify the applied CSR measures capital) are provided by the owning family (Danes et al., into environmental-, economic-, and societal-related CSR 2008; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013) for the benefit of the activities and postulate that the family resources provided firm and the family. The increased CSR levels are explained to the firm should lead to higher levels of CSR. The fam- through the image spillover effect. Owning families are often ily subsystem should also benefit through family outcomes. entrenched in their local communities and set great store Environmental-related CSR activities are those that aim to by their public image. CSR is a valued tool, particularly reduce or compensate for environmentally harmful behavior, by family-owned firms (Faller and zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, e.g., by fostering ecologically sustainable innovations, adapt- 2018), that facilitates image enhancement, thereby encour- ing green investment strategies, or adopting their behavior aging client loyalty and embedding the firm’s reputation, according to eco-certification standards (e.g., Bammens & consequently leading to increased financial success (Giner Hünermund, 2020; Dou et al., 2019; Miroshnychenko et al., Fig. 1 Theoretical Model 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 2022; Richards et al., 2017). Economic-related CSR activi- Moon, 2008; Van Marrewijk, 2013), we decided to apply ties favor stakeholders who directly relate to the company’s a wide range of keywords. The first group dealt with the value creation, e.g., employees, customers, or suppliers (e.g., identification of CSR-relevant research using: (CSR OR Bennedsen et al., 2019; Dangelico, 2017; Graafland, 2020; ‘corporate social responsibility’ OR ‘social responsibility’ Uhlaner et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2017). Societal-related OR ‘corporate responsibility’ OR ‘corporate social’ OR CSR includes generalized activities such as donations, atten- ‘corporate citizenship’ OR ‘environmental management’ tion to pressing community issues, or non-profit organization OR ‘sustainab*’ OR ‘social management’ OR ‘ethic’ OR support (e.g., Bhatnagar et al., 2020; Bingham et al., 2011; SDG OR ‘sustainable development goals’). The second Uhlaner et al., 2004). group concentrated on the relevant literature concerning CSR is a firm-level construct. Through these activities, family firms: (‘family firm*’ OR ‘family business*’ OR firms maintain or strengthen relationships with different ‘family enterprise*’ OR ‘family sme’ OR ‘family own*’ stakeholders, thereby increasing their competitive posi- OR ‘family-own*’ OR ‘family control*’ OR ‘family led’ tion (Stock et al., 2022; Wagner, 2010). However, due to OR ‘family involve*’ OR ‘family influence*’). the interdependence between family and firm, in the case of By screening all search results that included both a key- family-owned firms, both subsystems benefit from the posi- word from the CSR and the family firm keyword group in the tive effects CSR generates. title or abstract (current analysis covers published research The SFBT also theorizes that a family firm is more resil- up to June 30th, 2022), we identified 368 studies. We did ient to external disruptions due to the buffer that family not consider articles that included one term of both keyword resources can provide (Stafford et al., 1999). Researchers groups but did not deal with both categories explicitly or must also look at moderating contextual factors outside the implicitly, as was the case with studies dealing with CSR family r fi m system to understand the heterogeneous n fi dings (or one of its synonyms) using family firms for the analy - better. For example, when CSR is essential for stakehold- sis without addressing their particularities. Studies dealing ers (e.g., valued by customers, society, or industry regula- with the ethical values in family firms, but not their impact tions), the family firm may be more incentivized to invest on CSR activities or related concepts, were also excluded. its resources in CSR activities (e.g., Baù et al., 2021; Chen After this initial screening, we excluded all articles in jour- & Liu, 2022; Samara et al., 2018). In CSR research, such nals that were not ranked as ‘2 or better’ by the Association factors are often understood as directly affecting CSR activi- of Business Schools’ (2021) Academic Journal Guide. By ties (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Our SFBT-based theoreti- doing this, 122 articles remained a final sample for further cal model includes contextual factors as exogenous drivers, in-depth analysis. Two authors read all papers independently while family and firm antecedents form endogenous drivers. and extracted information regarding author(s), year, title, In a family firm-specific context, we consider that more or journal, research method, applied theory, geographic scope, fewer resources from the family or firm subsystem are allo- and critical variables using a data-extraction sheet. To better cated to CSR activities due to the pressure emerging from understand the articles within our sample, we also looked the context in which the family firm operates. up the number of citations per paper using google.scholar. The 122 articles were then categorized by whether the key variables analyzed were CSR antecedents or outcomes Methodology of family firms or both CSR antecedents and outcomes. Articles that examined the effect of family firm-specifics To answer our research questions, we applied the Tran- on CSR were classified into ‘antecedents,’ while articles field et al. (2003) methodology, which uses three phases classified into the ‘outcome’ category examined how fam - (i.e., planning, conducting, and reporting) to systemati- ily firm-specifics affect CSR’s effects. First, we subdivided cally review and collect significant scientific contribu- antecedents and outcomes into a family and a firm’s sub- tions in a specific research area. We developed a detailed categories, as suggested by the SFBT. The SFBT indicates search strategy and search protocol for English articles that integrating family and firm resources helps encounter in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We then carried internal and external disruptions (Danes et al., 2008; Staf- out the pre-defined search in the following databases: ford et al., 1999). Consequently, we created a subcategory (1) EBSCO Business Source Elite; (2) Elsevier Science with contextual factors affecting a firm’s longevity, including Direct; (3) Emerald; (4) Springer Link; (5) Wiley Online stakeholder pressure and community embeddedness. Two Library; and (6) ISI Web of Science. We searched these authors discussed and iteratively organized all subdivisions databases using a combination (AND conjunction) of two during the analysis process. Two subsequent authors were keyword groups. Due to the nascent stage of CSR in fam- consulted when a disagreement occurred, and all authors ily firm research (Kuttner et al., 2021) and the wide range discussed categorization extensively until a consensus was of synonyms regarding CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008; Matten & found. 1 3 C. Stock et al. of the citations, followed by Entrepreneurship Theory Current Research Status and Practice with 18.81% and Family Business Review with 13.10%. Drawing on the Academic Journal Guide Article Characteristics (Association of Business Schools, 2021) to evaluate the journal quality (‘4’ being the highest score and ‘2’ the The 122 reviewed articles were published in 52 journals, lowest), 12.30% of the reviewed articles appeared in jour- mainly on general management, ethics, gender, and social nals ranked as ‘4’, 57.38% were ranked as ‘3’, and 30.32% responsibility. It is noteworthy that the journal with the ranked as ‘2’ (see Table 1). most significant number of publications is the Journal of The density of publications on CSR in family firms has Business Ethics, which is responsible for 18.85% of all increased significantly in the last ten years (see Fig. 2). One publications in our review. We identified 15 journals, each reason might be that CSR research, in general, became more publishing at least two articles relevant to our research attractive since the global financial crisis of 2007/2008, field. These 15 journals account for 51.64% of all reviewed when corporate entities’ mismanagement and irresponsi- articles. The remaining 36 journals published one article ble behavior were discovered and made public (Blodgett each, accounting for 29.51% of all reviewed articles. Our et al., 2011). This crisis necessitated a major social reas- citation analysis shows similar results. First, the 122 arti- sessment and overhaul of business practices in financial cles have a general citation count of 15,952. Once again, and corporate institutions (Crane et al., 2013). Due to their the Journal of Business Ethics stands out, covering 20.44% Table 1 Most Influential Journals No. Journal Title AJG Ranking Number of Publications Number of Citations 1 Journal of Business Ethics 3 23 (18.85%) 3261 (20.44%) 2 Business Strategy and the Environment 3 13 (10.66%) 803 (5.03%) 3 Family Business Review 3 10 (8.20%) 2089 (13.10%) 4 Journal of Family Business Strategy 2 6 (4.92%) 451 (2.83%) 5 Journal of Cleaner Production 2 6 (4,92%) 210 (1.32%) 6 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 4 5 (4.10%) 3001 (18.81%) 7 Journal of Business Research 3 3 (2.46%) 326 (2.04%) 8 Asia Pacific Journal of Management 3 3 (2.46%) 152 (0.95%) 9 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 2 3 (2.46%) 405 (2.54%) 10 International Journal of Research in Marketing 4 2 (1.64%) 247 (1.55%) Total 74 (60.66%) 10945 (68.61%) Fig. 2 Annual Distribution of the 122 Reviewed Published Articles 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… trans-generational orientation (Giner & Ruiz, 2020; Lump- (e.g., Dawson et al., 2020; Peake et al., 2017) as there is kin & Brigham, 2011), family firms have been discussed as a little publicly available data on SMEs (Miller & Le Breton- counter-model to opportunistic, shareholder-value-oriented, Miller, 2007). Qualitative methods were used for induc- non-family firm management (Blodgett et al., 2011), which tive exploration of new research issues and theories, e.g., could explain increased research activities regarding CSR semi-structured interviews using case study methodology antecedents in family firms. Although it is still a signifi - (see Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Bhatnagar et al., 2020; cantly under-researched area, the debate about CSR’s fam- Marques et al., 2014). ily firm outcomes has become more popular (Kuttner & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018). The relatively lower research Theories in Use output since 2021 could be explained by focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, given the significant In sum, we found 96 different applied theories, giving the social and environmental problems our world faces, our impression that the research field’s theoretical foundation research field’s growth will likely continue (see, e.g., Le is fragmented. However, most theories played only a minor Breton-Miller & Miller, 2022). Researchers want to examine role within our sample. When analyzing the applied theories’ how family firms differ from non-family firms (Adams et al., underlying assumptions, we noted four theories appearing at 1996; Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Maung et al., 2020) least once in 52 papers: The Principal Agency Theory, SEW, and what both types of firms can learn from these differ - Stakeholder Theory, and Institutional Theory (see Table 3). ences (Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b; 30 studies combine those by drawing from different assump- Samara & Arenas, 2017). tions to explain a family firm’s CSR activities. When looking at reviewed article’s research methods (see In CSR-related family firm research, the Principal Agency Table 2), quantitative research stands out. When analyzing Theory states that the stronger the control of the owning large firms, quantitative research mainly draws from longitu- family (through ownership shares or management), the dinal databases such as the Thomson Reuters databases (e.g., more successfully the owning family will impose its own El Ghoul et al., 2016; Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2017, 2018), goals on the firm (e.g., Block, 2010; López-González et al., KLD data (e.g., Block & Wagner, 2014a, 2014b; Kim et al., 2019; Sahasranamam et al., 2020; Wiklund, 2006). In this 2017; Lamb & Butler, 2018; Liu et al., 2017), annual reports regard, twenty-four articles drew on the Principal Agency (e.g., Biswas et al., 2019; Sundarasen et al., 2016; Zamir Theory, focusing on conflicts in the relationship between the & Saeed, 2020) and S&P 500 firms (e.g., Cui et al., 2018; principal (mainly the owning family) and the agent (mainly Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b; Wagner, 2010). Quantitative non-family managers), characterized by information asym- studies examining family-owned small and medium-sized metry between the two, where the agent has an information enterprises (SMEs) draw from cross-sectional surveyed data advantage against the principal. The unequal distribution Table 2 Research Method Used Antecedent-related Antecedent- and Outcome-related Total Outcome-related Quantitative 81 (66.39%) 14 (11.48%) 9 (7.38%) 104 (85.25%) Qualitative 10 (8.20%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 11 (9.02%) Conceptual 5 (4.10%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 7 (5.74%) Total 96 (78.69%) 16 (13.11%) 10 (8.20%) 122 (100.00%) Table 3 Theories Theory Representative Studies Principal Agency Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), Block (2010), Cui et al. (2018), El Ghoul et al. (2016), Labelle et al. (2018), Seckin- Theory Halac et al. (2021), Wiklund (2006) Socioemotional Wealth Cruz et al. (2014), Dick et al. (2021), Graafland (2020), Lamb & Butler (2018), Samara et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018), Zientara (2017) Stakeholder Theory Ahmad et al. (2020), Bendell (2022), Bingham et al. (2011), Maggioni & Santangelo (2017), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Uhlaner et al. (2004) Institutional Theory Agostino & Ruberto (2021), Bammens & Hünermund (2020), Campopiano & De Massis (2015), Du et al. (2016), Ge & Micelotta (2019), Kim et al. (2017), Singal (2014) N = 122 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. of information among these groups leads to the possibility more recent studies tend towards being theory-driven, indi- that the agent may not act in the principal’s best interest cating that the understanding of family firms has advanced. and behaves opportunistically for personal gain (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976). Content Findings The Institutional Theory was referred to in eighteen arti- cles and focused on how firms must adapt to a different envi- Family Firm Antecedents ronment to gain legitimacy while conducting their business (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Du et al., 2016; Zamir & In total, 96 of all articles in our sample (78.69%) dealt exclu- Saeed, 2020). Since firms ostensibly adapt their behavior to sively with the antecedent angle of CSR in family firms, the rules of the institutional norms and routines of broader while 16 (14.95%) dealt with both antecedents and outcomes society, the Institutional Theory is used to explain social simultaneously showing the predominance of antecedent- behavior in different contexts (e.g., Du et al., 2016; Ge & related focus of the field of CSR in family firms. Micelotta, 2019; Singal, 2014). Family firm-related CSR When the first articles addressing family antecedents research uses this theory mainly to examine how specific (see Adams et al., 1996; Graafland et al., 2003; Gallo, 2004; antecedents affect CSR under different contextual factors Uhlaner et al., 2004) were published, it was implicitly theo- (e.g., Agostino & Ruberto, 2021; Du et al., 2016; Kim et al., rized that family resources (i.e., family social capital toward 2017). For example, the location of a company’s industry stakeholders) are antecedents of CSR activities (Uhlaner influences how family ownership or management affects et al., 2004). Subsequent publications applied different CSR (Chen & Cheng, 2020). The same applies to cultural exercises to identify family antecedents of CSR, with family contexts (Samara et al., 2018). ownership being the most prominent measure (see Table 4). SEW was applied in twenty-one articles and used as a The research reveals that most studies use family owner- theoretical concept. The first article in our sample using SEW ship (e.g., Bammens & Hünermund, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; was published in 2014, and this concept has gained popular- Rees & Rodionova, 2015; Terlaak et al., 2018) followed by ity ever since (Swab et al., 2020). SEW focuses on the fam- family management (e.g., Block, 2010; Cui et al., 2018; Oh ily’s affective and non-financial goals, such as strengthening et al., 2019) or a combination of both (e.g., Craig & Dibrell, the family image and maintaining control over the own firm 2006; Dangelico, 2017; Kim & Lee, 2018) for examining (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Labelle et al., 2018; Marques the effect of family antecedents on CSR in family firms. et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2015). Therefore, the most dominant Although there is a moderate tendency towards a positive argument among studies influenced by SEW is that the own- effect, no apparent effect on CSR activities can be found; ing family wants to protect its family image and therefore this could be because these measures alone are insufficient engages in CSR to improve that image and look good to to influence firm decisions, as the owning family cannot stakeholders (e.g., Dick et al., 2021; Labelle et al., 2018; adequately influence internal decision-making processes by Ma et al., 2022; Madden et al., 2020; Nadeem et al., 2020). their mere presence (Terlaak et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021). As The Stakeholder Theory was used in thirteen articles and suspected, the operational measures do not sufficiently reflect is one of the fundamental and dominant theories of gen- the overlap between family and company (Chua et al., 1999). eral CSR research (Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017; Freeman Although SEW covers the influence of the owning family et al., 2010). This theory explains why family firms are much better than research using family ownership and man- stakeholder-focused and, therefore, conduct more CSR than agement, it similarly shows heterogeneous results regarding non-family firms (Bingham et al., 2011; Delmas & Gergaud, CSR (e.g., Arena & Michelon, 2018; Dayan et al., 2019; 2014) and is attributed to the presence of an owning fam- Kariyapperuma & Collins, 2021; Zientara, 2017). Even ily. Reasons for this include, for example, inter-generational though the probability that SEW emerges increases with thinking and higher awareness of stakeholder pressure com- the overlapping of the subsystems family and firm (Berrone pared to non-family firms (Cruz et al., 2014; Delmas & Ger - et al., 2010), it does not have a resource-increasing char- gaud, 2014). Additionally, CSR-related family firm research acter per se, which can be directed to conduct more CSR. assumes that owner families use their firms to pursue finan- Therefore, CSR only partially supports SEW-related goals, cial and non-financial family goals and are more inclined to which also explains the heterogeneous results of the other engage in CSR towards their stakeholders to achieve these studies (e.g., Cruz et al., 2014; Dick et al., 2021; Zientara, goals (Bingham et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2014). 2017). For example, SEW causes family firms to engage in There is a contemporary trend proposing a combination CSR with external stakeholders more often than non-family of the four prevailing theories (e.g., García-Sánchez et al., firms in order to generate a positive image spillover effect 2021; López-González et al., 2019; Sahasranamam et al., for the owning family, but less to engage in CSR with inter- 2020; Seckin-Halac et al., 2021), although, notably, approxi- nal stakeholders, as the owning family is afraid of losing mately 30% of the articles used no theories at all. However, 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Table 4 Family Antecedents Family Antecedents Effect on CSR Representative Studies Family-firm status 6 2 (33.33%) Positive Gallo (2004), Palma et al. (2022) 1 (16.66%) Negative Dekker & Hasso (2016) 3 (50.00%) Indistinct Adams et al. (1996), Déniz & Suárez (2005), Graafland et al. (2003) Family ownership 47 27 (57.45%) Positive Bammens & Hünermund (2020), Kim et al. (2020), Sahasranamam et al. (2020) 16 (34.04%) Negative Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), El Ghoul et al. (2016), Ma et al. (2022) 4 (8.51%) Indistinct Bergamaschi & Randerson (2016), Labelle et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018) Family management 22 13 (59.09%) Positive Abeysekera & Fernando (2020), López-González et al. (2019), Palma et al. (2022) 6 (27.27%) Negative Block & Wagner (2014a), Graafland (2020), Oh et al. (2019) 3 (13.64%) Indistinct Berrone et al. (2010), Cui et al. (2018), Terlaak et al. (2018) Family ownership and man- 23 agement 12 (52.17%) Positive Chen & Liu (2022), Dangelico (2017), Liu et al. (2017) 4 (17.39%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Chen & Cheng (2020), Craig & Dibrell (2006) 7 (30.44%) Indistinct Doluca et al. (2018), Fritz et al. (2021), Kim & Lee (2018) Socioemotional wealth 6 3 (50.00%) Positive Dayan et al. (2019), Kallmuenzer et al. (2018), Kariyapperuma & Collins (2021) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 3 (50.00%) Indistinct Arena & Michelon (2018), Le Breton-Miller & Miller (2016), Zientara (2017) Family generation 12 10 (83.33%) Positive Dawson et al. (2020), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Uhlaner et al. (2004) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 2 (16.66%) Indistinct Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019), Richards et al. (2017) Family values 13 12 (92.31%) Positive Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019), Marques et al. (2014), Sánchez-Medina & Díaz- Pichardo (2017) 1 (7.69%) Negative Zheng et al. (2017) 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – Family firm name 4 4 (100.00%) Positive Bingham et al. (2011); Kashmiri & Mahajan (2014a); Uhlaner et al. (2004) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – N = 112 antecedent-related articles control over their own company by making concessions to, has the same name as the owning family and leads to an e.g., employees (Cruz et al., 2014). overall positive effect on CSR (e.g., Kashmiri & Mahajan, In line with our theoretical assumption, research using the 2010, 2014a; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Thus, more sophisticated family generation measure (e.g., Dawson et al., 2020; Del- degrees of family influence, such as family generation, fam- mas & Gergaud, 2014; Uhlaner et al., 2004) and family value ily values, and the family firm name, tend to be associated measures (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Marques with a strong interrelation of family and firm subsystem. et al., 2014; Sánchez-Medina & Díaz-Pichardo, 2017), Since a family firm consists not only of a family subsys- which are better at capturing the overlap between family and tem but also of a firm subsystem, research studies examined firm, show predominantly positive effects on CSR. These the influence of general firm antecedents on CSR activi- studies argue that as the control of the owning family gets ties in our sample (see Table 5). These studies answer how stronger on day-to-day operations, so does the opportunity firm antecedents interact with family antecedents regarding to influence internal business decisions (Sharma & Sharma, CSR. They focus mainly on (internal) non-financial anteced- 2011; Uhlaner et al., 2012). Probably the most significant ents predominantly showing the effect on CSR and exam- overlap between family and firm is shown when the firm ine the effect of governance (e.g., Campopiano et al., 2014; 1 3 C. Stock et al. Table 5 Firm Antecedents Firm Antecedents Effect on CSR Representative Studies Financial 2 2 (100.00%) Positive Block (2010), Singal (2014) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – Non-financial (internal) 28 24 (85.72%) Positive Biswas et al. (2019), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2017, 2018); Seckin-Halac et al. (2021) 2 (7.14%) Negative Graafland (2020), Madden et al. (2020) 2 (7.14%) Indistinct Kim & Lee (2018), Samara et al. (2018) Non-financial (external) 4 3 (75.00%) Positive Du (2015), Ge & Micelotta (2019), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2018) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 1 (25.00%) Indistinct Richards et al. (2017) N = 112 antecedent-related articles El-Kassar et al., 2018; Terlaak et al., 2018) and non-family studies found that family firms generate better results from management (e.g., Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2017; Oh et al., CSR activities than non-family firms (see Table 6), indi- 2019; Samara et al., 2018) on family firms’ CSR activities. cating that family firms, in general, are better at utilizing With only two studies examining the effect of financial ante- CSR (e.g., Antheaume et al., 2013; Niehm et al., 2008; cedents, it is apparent that further research is still needed. O’Boyle et al., 2010; Panwar et al., 2014). Most studies show how family firms improve their Family Firm Outcomes financial outcomes through, among others, the cost of capital (Wu et al., 2014) or return on new products (Kash- Ten studies within our sample (8.20%) examined the out- miri & Mahajan, 2014a), but mainly focus on the firm’s come side of CSR exclusively, while 16 (13.11%) dealt general performance (e.g., Adomako et al., 2019; Choi with both antecedents and outcomes simultaneously, et al., 2019; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014b). Family firms showing the predominance of antecedent-related focus of can also improve their internal non-financial outcomes CSR in family firms. Remarkably, most outcome-related (Ahmad et al., 2020), such as longevity (Antheaume Table 6 Firm Outcomes Firm Outcomes Effect of CSR Representative Studies Financial 17 10 (56.25%) Positive Ahmad et al. (2020), Niehm et al. (2008), Pan et al. (2018) 2 (12.50%) Negative Choi et al. (2019), Lin et al. (2020) 5 (31.25%) Indistinct Dangelico (2017), Doluca et al. (2018), Liu et al. (2017) Non-financial (internal) 7 6 (85.71%) Positive Antheaume et al. (2013), Craig & Dibrell (2006), Wagner (2010) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 1 (14.29%) Indistinct Doluca et al. (2018) Non-financial (external) 7 4 (57.14%) Positive Ahmad et al. (2020), Samara & Arenas (2017), Sekerci et al. (2022) 2 (28.57%) Negative Hsueh (2018), Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2018) 1 (14.29%) Indistinct Zientara (2017) N = 26 outcome-related articles 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… et al., 2013; Samara & Arenas, 2017) or innovation per- family outcomes, even though the importance of family out- formance (Biscotti et al., 2018; Craig & Dibrell, 2006; comes was referred to in the reviewed literature (e.g., Cam- Wagner, 2010) and in external non-financial areas such as popiano & De Massis, 2015; Niehm et al., 2008; Zientara, firm reputation (Samara & Arenas, 2017; Zientara, 2017), 2017). Déniz and Suárez (2005) note how owning families credibility (Hsueh, 2018; Panwar et al., 2014), or customer are personally affected by the relationships with stakeholders orientation (Ahmad et al., 2020). since they are inseparable from it. Furthermore, the findings The research literature determines two main reasons fam- of Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019) conclude that the own- ily firms generate augmented outcomes through CSR. The ing family derives honors from socially responsible behav- signaling effect associated with family firm status prompts ior and, therefore, could act as a basis for family outcome- external non-financial outcomes (e.g., Martínez-Ferrero related CSR research. et al., 2018; Maung et al., 2020; Sekerci et al., 2022), and the familiness dynamic, which allows family firms to translate Contextual Factors CSR into positive financial and internal non-financial out- comes (e.g., Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Pan et al., 2018; Wag- A fundamental assumption of studies analyzing family firms ner, 2010). The signaling effect means external stakeholders is that owning families are more sensitive to external contex- are less likely to perceive the family firm’s CSR activities tual factors than other non-family owners, thus leading to a as opportunistic green-washing, particularly in the case of greater tendency to implement the requirements of external SMEs where the owning family is evident (e.g., Ahmad stakeholders (Ge & Micelotta, 2019). The owning family et al., 2020; Dangelico, 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2010) but also assigns greater importance to the r fi m’s image, as the family with large, publicly listed family firms (e.g., Biscotti et al., identifies with the firm (e.g., Amidjaya & Widagdo, 2020; 2018; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2014a; Wu et al., 2014). Discua Cruz, 2020; Labelle et al., 2018; Zientara, 2017). If The familiness stream of literature is not concerned with the firm carries the family name, the family and the firm’s whether family firms engage in more or less CSR than non- reputation become inseparable, and maintaining or acquiring family firms but with the extent to which family firms can a good reputation is paramount (e.g., Abeysekera & Fer- better translate CSR activities into positive outcomes (e.g., nando, 2020; Bammens & Hünermund, 2020; Kashmiri & Wagner, 2010). Family firms have the advantage of asserting Mahajan, 2010; Pan et al., 2018; Uhlaner et al., 2004). Fol- more influence on the operational management and increas - lowing this argumentation, an owning family will be more ing control over the firm’s subsystem (Doluca et al., 2018; willing to provide resources to the family firm system for Niehm et al., 2008). Both streams utilize the transgenera- CSR activities intended for brand enhancement and expected tional aspect particular to family firms that ensures their from the firm by external stakeholders. strategies and aims have long-term focus leads them to use The research literature analysis revealed that contextual CSR to maximize positive outcomes for the owning family factors could be divided into general stakeholder pressure and the firm (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Niehm and community embeddedness. While public stakeholder et al., 2008; Zientara, 2017). pressure can be abstract communication from an anonymous We did not find research providing practical informa- group (e.g., industry) resulting in a generic response (e.g., tion on whether CSR-improved stakeholder relations affect via CSR reports) (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015), Table 7 Contextual Factors Contextual Factors Effect on CSR Representative Studies Stakeholder pressure 26 18 (69.23%) Positive Maggioni & Santangelo (2017), Yu et al. (2021), Zamir & Saeed (2020) 1 (3.85%) Negative López-González et al. (2019) 7 (26.92%) Indistinct Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al. (2015), Dayan et al. (2019), Le Breton-Miller & Miller (2016) Community embeddedness 10 10 (100.00%) Positive Baù et al. (2021), Dekker & Hasso (2016), Peake et al. (2017) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 0 (0.00%) Indistinct – N = 35 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. family firms with community embeddedness are more The reason Western cultures incorporate CSR more involved and use CSR to respond to the needs or require- than their Asian counterparts can be attributed to the dif- ments of the community (e.g., Niehm et al., 2008; Peake ference in cultural and political aims and values. Western et al., 2017). Table 7 shows we found 26 studies covering countries tend to be highly stakeholder-oriented, and the general stakeholder pressure and ten explicitly covering the values are based on “liberal democratic rights, justice, and impact of family community embeddedness on a family societal structures” (Amann et al., 2012, p. 331), leading firm’s CSR activities (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 2010; Laguir to more significant institutional pressure for firms to com- et al., 2016; Peake et al., 2017). ply accordingly (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; Dekker It is noteworthy that the relevance of public stakeholder & Hasso, 2016). Asian countries have a more shareholder- pressure (e.g., industry norms, national culture) is more oriented culture. Therefore, there is less social pressure to pronounced in studies analyzing large firms (e.g., Blodgett become CSR-compliant (El Ghoul et al., 2016), and the et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2014; Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al., owning families tend to focus more on their personal finan- 2015). Studies on SMEs tend towards community embed- cial well-being, subsequently regarding CSR as relatively dedness (e.g., Dekker & Hasso, 2016; Kallmuenzer et al., inconsequential (e.g., Biswas et al., 2019; Du, 2015; Du 2018; Peake et al., 2017). The community embeddedness et al., 2016; Muttakin & Khan, 2014). Family firms form perspective shifts the focus away from general stakeholder the backbone of the Asian economy, with family owner- groups and examines the owning family’s interpersonal ties ship being the most dominant ownership form of compa- within the local community. The latter research argues that nies in the Asia Pacific region (El Ghoul et al., 2016). Of family-owned SMEs use CSR as a strategic tool to influ- the largest 500 largest global family firms ranked by rev - ence external stakeholders’ perception (i.e., local commu- enue, over 20% are Asia-based, with combined revenue of nity) positively to closer relationships between them (Lamb almost $2 trillion (Global Family Business Index, 2021). et al., 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2012). Interestingly, all studies Although it is not required by law for Asian companies to unanimously agree that family firms react with more CSR be CSR compliant, there is a trend towards encouraging towards pressure from contextual factors. more CSR from companies to entice foreign investment. Although most studies show the positive effect of external Foreign investors from Western countries and companies pressure on a firm to conduct CSR activities, this is country are encouraged by their external stakeholders to provide and region-dependent (Ertuna et al., 2019; Ge & Micelotta, ethically and ecologically sourced products, and therefore 2019; Labelle et al., 2018; Zamir & Saeed, 2020). The first the investors and companies will require CSR from the studies with US American datasets were conducted between Asian company they are importing from or collaborating 2003 and 2013. The economic relevance of Asia has recently with (Cordeiro et al., 2018; Du et al., 2018; Muttakin & increased, engendering an increase in CSR-related family Khan, 2014). firm studies and applying Asian datasets since 2009 (see In India, for example, many local family firms are volun - Table 8). While studies using US American data mainly tarily socially responsible (Bhatnagar et al., 2020; Sahasran- recorded positive ee ff cts of family antecedents on CSR (e.g., amam et al., 2020). They aim at better working conditions Cordeiro et al., 2020; Lamb & Butler, 2018; McGuire et al., for employees, for example, and are involved in improving 2012; Panwar et al., 2014), Asian studies have frequently the local community; e.g., the Godrej Group preferred to shown the contrary (Biswas et al., 2019; El Ghoul et al., protect mangroves on its land in Mumbai, despite the insa- 2016; Huang et al., 2009; Muttakin & Khan, 2014). tiable demand for housing development. Jardine Mathe- son, a Fortune 500 and Hong Kong-based multinational Table 8 Research-originating countries Before 2001 2001–2005 2006–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Since 2021 Total International 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (1.64%) 11 (9.02%) 6 (4.92%) 20 (16.39%) USA 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 9 (7.38%) 11 (9.02%) 11 (9.02%) 1 (0.82%) 33 (27.05%) Central-America 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) Australia 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 2 (1.64%) Europe 0 (0.00%) 3 (2.46%) 0 (0.00%) 6 (4.92%) 13 (10.66%) 4 (3.28%) 26 (21.31%) Asia 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 5 (4.10%) 22 (18.03%) 2 (1.64%) 30 (24.59%) Africa 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) Conceptual 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.82%) 1 (0.82%) 4 (3.28%) 0 (0.00%) 7 (5.74%) Total 1 (0.82%) 4 (3.28%) 11 (9.02%) 25 (20.49%) 66 (54.10%) 15 (12.30%) 122 (100.00%) 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… conglomerate controlled by the Keswick family has pledged Looking at different family and firm subsystem antecedents its commitment to biodiversity and is implementing sustain- and outcomes through the lens of individual CSR activities ability strategies in its many operating companies. The com- gives us a balanced perspective. None of the CSR activities pany has a proactive approach and collaborates with public focus on specific antecedents or outcomes, and there are no stakeholders on climate issues, ecological sustainability, and significant differences in the effects between the activities. forest protection aiming to mitigate any adverse impact from We conclude that the related CSR activities have not yet its operations and products (Jardine Matheson, 2021). been sufficiently differentiated in family firm research, and From the research literature, we conclude that it is not the disproportionately large number of articles that do not only essential to understand the effects of different organi- distinguish between different CSR activities supports this zational settings (i.e., family and firm subsystem) on CSR view. (Dahlsrud, 2008) but also the effects of external contextual and cultural factors that influence the internal processes of a family firm when considering CSR as a driver. Future Directions of Research Figure 3 recapitulates the scope and robustness of the find- Corporate Social Responsibility Activities ings in our data sample. In terms of scope, the literature shows that most CSR-related family firm research focuses We examined which CSR activities were used in our study on CSR antecedents, and only a few studies are concerned samples and how their antecedents and outcomes dif- with outcomes. On the antecedent side, research mainly fered. According to Elkington’s (1998) triple-bottom-line focuses on the direct effect of family antecedents on CSR approach, we classified the applied CSR measures into envi- or the interaction with firm antecedents and its effect on ronmental-, economic-, and societal-related CSR activities CSR. However, such research examining the interaction of (see Table 9). family and firm antecedents on CSR is in the minority. The Twenty-nine articles were allocated to environmen- research clearly shows a lack of analysis on CSR outcomes tal-related CSR (23.77%), 21 to economic-related CSR in family firms, and in terms of firm outcomes, family firms (17.21%), and thirteen articles to societal-related CSR achieve more through CSR than non-family firms. Although (10.66%). Furthermore, we found that in 59 articles there is increasing emphasis on family firm research, the (48.36%), the majority of research is based on CSR meas- study of family outcomes (e.g., family community status, ures that do not differentiate between different activities but family emotional well-being) is lacking. Moreover, the average different activities in one measure (e.g., Gallo, 2004; catalytic role of CSR activities has not yet been studied in Hsueh, 2018; Iyer & Lulseged, 2013; McGuire et al., 2012). detail, where the fundamental question of which antecedents Table 9 Corporate Social Responsibility Activities in Family Firms CSR Activities Effect in Family Firms Representative Studies Aggregated CSR 59 37 (62.71%) Positive Fitzgerald et al. (2010), Gallo (2004), Memili et al. (2020) 12 (35.59%) Negative Biswas et al. (2019), Hsueh (2018), Muttakin & Khan (2014) 10 (16.95%) Indistinct Bergamaschi & Randerson (2016), Iyer & Lulseged (2013), Zientara (2017) Environmental-related CSR 29 17 (58.62%) Positive Block & Wagner (2014b), Delmas & Gergaud (2014), Terlaak et al. (2018) 6 (20.69%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Dekker & Hasso (2016), Nadeem et al. (2020) 6 (20.69%) Indistinct Adomako et al. (2019), Kim & Lee (2018), Doluca et al. (2018) Economic-related CSR 21 14 (66.66%) Positive Cruz et al. (2019), Kashmiri & Mahajan (2014a), López-González et al. (2019) 4 (19.05%) Negative Amann et al. (2012), Nadeem et al. (2020), Zheng et al. (2017) 3 (14.29%) Indistinct Campopiano & De Massis (2015), Cruz et al. (2014), Fritz et al. (2021) Societal-related CSR 13 10 (76.92%) Positive Bingham et al. (2011), Niehm et al. (2008), Sahasranamam et al. (2020) 0 (0.00%) Negative – 3 (23.08%) Indistinct Amann et al. (2012), Kim & Lee (2018), Block & Wagner (2014b) N = 122 articles 1 3 C. Stock et al. Fig. 3 Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of CSR in Family Firms and outcomes are linked by which CSR activities remain family outcomes. Furthermore, the research literature cannot unanswered. provide robust findings on how contextual factors affect the In terms of robustness, it is evident that the more sub- outcome side of CSR in family firms. stantial the interrelation between family and firm (see, e.g., To gain further insight, we propose nine research ques- family generation, family values, and the family firm name), tions for future exploration to open the ‘black boxes’ and the higher the probability that a family firm will conduct consequently lead to clarifying significant aspects concern- CSR. Although the research field is mainly antecedent-ori- ing family firm CSR activities (see Table 10). ented, the literature shows that the effect of family on firm Family firm research traditionally focuses on examining antecedents remains unexplored. On the outcome side, CSR family antecedents and only marginally includes firm ante- predominantly has robust effects on firm outcomes. Con- cedents in their models. Family and firm antecedents’ effects sidering that an empirical examination of family outcomes on CSR are mainly examined independently. Research shows is missing, it is unclear how CSR and firm outcomes affect that family involvement (identification and commitment) and Table 10 Research Questions Research question 1a Which firm antecedents (i.e., firm resources) affect the association between family antecedents (i.e., family resources) and CSR activities? Research question 1b Which conflicts can arise during the resource transaction between family and firm subsystem, and how does this affect CSR activities? Research question 2 Which family outcomes (i.e., family resources) can an owning family generate through the CSR activities of its firm, and how do those affect the family firm’s CSR activities in subsequent periods? Research question 3a Which firm outcomes (i.e., firm resources) affect the association between CSR activities and family outcomes (i.e., fam- ily resources)? Research question 3b Which conflicts can arise during the resource transaction between family and firm subsystem, and how does this affect the family firm’s CSR outcomes? Research question 4 Which contextual factors affect the relationship between CSR activities and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes) of family firms? Research Question 5a Which CSR activities (e.g., environmental, economic, or societal-related) are linked to which antecedents (i.e., family and firm antecedents) and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes)? Research question 5b How and why do CSR activities affect antecedents and outcomes of family firms? Research question 6 How and why do CSR activities increase the longevity of family firms? 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… family values have a positive effect on CSR activities but do Family firm research mainly concentrates on examining not examine the extent to which family and firm antecedents CSR’s antecedent angle. Previous findings dealt with the interact with each other (e.g., Marques et al., 2014; Peake financial and non-financial firm outcomes while only theo- et al., 2017; Sharma & Sharma, 2011; Uhlaner et al., 2012). rizing about family outcomes without empirically studying Following our SFBT-based theoretical framework, we them. However, more and more studies have recently scru- know that the higher the influence of the owning fam- tinized CSR outcomes in family firms (e.g., Hsueh, 2018; ily within its firm, the greater the interaction between Lin et al., 2020; Sekerci et al., 2022). The empirical scrutiny family and firm, and the more resources can be trans- on CSR family outcomes is logical, considering CSR is a ferred between both (Stafford et al., 1999). When family firm-level construct. resources are transferred to the firm subsystem, familiness It is, however, an assumption of the SFBT-based theo- is generated, providing the family firm with a more exten- retical framework that while family and firm share their sive resource base, ultimately leading to a competitive resources to some extent, the family and the firm pursue advantage in the long term (Frank et al., 2017; Habbershon their specific goals separately (Danes et al., 2008; Stafford & Williams, 1999; Weismeier-Sammer et al., 2013). These et al., 1999). Thus, Campopiano and De Massis (2015) state theoretical assumptions are implicitly applied, explaining that owning families can profit from the image-enhancing that owning families involved within the firm introduces effect of CSR themselves through an increased family image. responsible behavior, which stakeholders will eventually Furthermore, Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2019) conclude that repay (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Fitzgerald family honorableness is one of the outcomes of a family et al., 2010; Fritz et al., 2021). According to research, the firm’s CSR activities, indicating that CSR generates family family’s social capital is a crucial driver of a family firm’s outcomes. However, which family outcomes can be gener- CSR activities and competitiveness (e.g., Niehm et al., ated through CSR has not yet been examined. Consequently, 2008; Peake et al., 2017; Uhlaner et al., 2004). we recommend exploratory (i.e., qualitative) work in this Unexamined is the permeability of the two subsystem area to determine which family outcomes an owning family boundaries and how those affect the effectiveness of the may achieve through CSR. resource transaction. Utilizing the system’s theoretical per- The literature indicates that if CSR activities do not bring spective, we theorize that the subsystem’s boundary perme- positive results for the owning family, they will probably ability can differ (Frank et al., 2017). Depending on how cease to provide resources for CSR implementation (Palma strong the subsystem boundaries are, the impact of family et al., 2022). Taking a closer look at the implicit assump- antecedents (i.e., family resources) can be more or less effec- tions made by the reviewed studies on family outcomes (e.g., tive on firm antecedents (i.e., firm resources). If the subsys- family harmony, family well-being), we find indications that tem permeability is low, resources can easily be transferred a family firm’s CSR could also have an impact on the own- from one subsystem to another, while such a transaction will ing family itself (e.g., Campopiano & De Massis, 2015; be more difficult when the permeability of the subsystem’s Niehm et al., 2008; Zientara, 2017). The family and the boundaries is high (Danes et al., 2008; Hernes & Bakken, firm are overlapping subsystems that mutually affect each 2003). However, this permeability can change, e.g., if the other, so the question remains which family outcomes (e.g., non-family management wants to preserve power within the family harmony, family well-being) may be achieved. Fol- firm subsystem and tries to hamper the integration of fam- lowing Jaskiewicz and Dyer (2017), we ask to what extent ily resources, meaning that the potentially positive effect of these family outcomes act in subsequent phases as family family resources (i.e., familiness) would not be achieved. antecedents. Thus, although we found that future family firm research should focus on the outcome angle of CSR, we believe that Research Question 2: Which family outcomes (i.e., fam- the antecedent’s research angle should also be developed. In ily resources) can an owning family generate through the this regard, we also propose to examine which factors could CSR activities of its firm, and how do those affect the hamper the transfer of family and firm subsystem resources family firm’s CSR activities in subsequent periods? between the subsystems and whether this could affect the family firm’s CSR activities. Although family outcomes were not explicitly examined, the research literature implicitly indicates that CSR-related Research Question 1a: Which firm antecedents (i.e., firm family outcomes are generated through the use of firm out- resources) affect the association between family anteced- comes (e.g., Aragón-Amonarriz et al., 2019; Campopiano ents (i.e., family resources) and CSR activities? & De Massis, 2015; Déniz and Suárez, 2005; Niehm et al., Research Question 1b: Which conflicts can arise during 2008; Zientara, 2017). It is a fundamental assumption of the resource transaction between family and firm subsys- our SFBT-based theoretical framework that resources can be tem, and how does this affect CSR activities? exchanged between family and firm as soon as the overlap of 1 3 C. Stock et al. both subsystems is significant enough (Danes et al., 2008; embeddedness increase the likelihood that family firms will Stafford et al., 1999), meaning the family firm has a unique engage in CSR (Ge & Micelotta, 2019). The greater the pres- resource base since it can draw from the owning family’s sure from contextual factors to engage in CSR, the more resources. Since the resource transaction between the two likely family firms are to mobilize their family resources for subsystems can also be performed from firm to family, this the firm (e.g., Berrone et al., 2010; Maggioni & Santangelo, implies that the owning family can also benefit from the 2017; Zamir & Saeed, 2020). firm’s financial and non-financial outcomes of CSR. Research shows that this pressure varies significantly However, as in the case of the antecedents, it is also nec- from region to region (Ertuna et al., 2019; Labelle et al., essary to consider where outcomes are concerned, that a 2018). While it tends to be high in the USA and Europe, it subsystem’s boundary permeability can hinder the resource tends to be low in Asian countries (Welford, 2007). How- transfer effectiveness. For example, some studies exam- ever, the economic relevance of the Asian continent has ine the extent to which majority shareholders withdraw increased, and the economic relationships between Asian resources from a company at the expense of minority share- countries and the Western world have become more relevant. holders (Welford, 2007). This so-called ‘tunneling’ disad- Muttakin and Khan (2014) found that many Asian firms vantages minority shareholders, who, due to their limited now use CSR to signal to foreign investors that they have influence, cannot protect themselves against majority share- more governance structures than other regional competitors holders (Dal Maso et al., 2020; Sahasranamam et al., 2020). (Cordeiro et al., 2018). Therefore, Asian family firms can Therefore, the potential for the transfer of firm resources use their family resources to enhance CSR and use it as a (primarily financial or social capital) could lead to the firm strategic tool to signal trustworthiness to Western investors subsystem decreasing its permeability to hamper resource (Du et al., 2018). flow to the family subsystem. Contextual factors could affect the relationship between Although we propose putting greater emphasis on firm CSR activities and their outcomes. For example, different outcomes, we also propose that outcomes-related CSR countries and communities may have different expectations research should include how family outcomes are affected of the owning family regarding CSR. Family firms could by CSR. For example, it could be examined whether an respond more effectively towards those expectations when increase in the firm’s performance through CSR also leads expanding since they have a more significant resource base to an increase in the family’s well-being. Another sugges- because of family resources. Therefore, we encourage future tion would be to examine whether a firm image, improved research to look for and examine contextual factors affecting through CSR, leads to more social capital for the owning the outcomes of CSR in family firms. family. In this regard, we also propose examining the extent to which conflicts occur between family and firm and to Research Question 4: Which contextual factors affect the what extent this process influences the generation of family relationship between CSR activities and outcomes (i.e., outcomes. family and firm outcomes) of family firms? Research Question 3a: Which firm outcomes (i.e., firm A crucial connection not yet addressed by current resources) affect the association between CSR activities research involves CSR antecedents and defining which ante- and family outcomes (i.e., family resources)? cedents lead to which outcomes, also which CSR activi- Research Question 3b: Which conflicts can arise during ties link those antecedents and outcomes. Whether the firm the resource transaction between family and firm sub- antecedents lead to firm outcomes or there are crossover system, and how does this affect the family firm’s CSR connections due to the overlap of family and r fi m, so that, for outcomes? example, firm antecedents generate family outcomes remains to be established. The effectiveness between family and firm According to our SFBT-based theoretical framework, antecedents is also an angle that should be considered. family and firm resources are used to overcome internal Therefore, it is necessary to consider which, how, and and external disruptions. Research has found that fam- why CSR activities link antecedents and outcomes. Labelle ily firms are more sensitive to external contextual factors et al. (2018) theorize that economic and non-economic goals (Uhlaner et al., 2004) and more adaptive to them due to drive a family firm’s CSR activities. They argue that the their unique set of resources. Research concerning CSR higher the proportion of family ownership, the more likely antecedents shows that stakeholder pressure and community the firm’s business activities align with achieving economic 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… goals. Since they attribute a non-economic effect to CSR, the motivation of the firm’s stakeholders to interact (Bing- they argue and deduce that more CSR is conducted in firms ham et al., 2011), helping to facilitate the social network with lesser family ownership, and fewer CSR activities are transfer from the predecessor to the successor (Aragón- conducted in firms with increased family ownership. Inter - Amonarriz et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2018; Schell et al., estingly, Terlaak et al. (2018) theorize and empirically find 2020). Thus, CSR is a strategic instrument that increases the opposite by arguing that family firms place a higher the firm’s legitimacy (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011), conse- emphasis on non-economic goals when family ownership quently increasing the probability of a successful genera- within the firm increases. tional handover (Pan et al., 2018). Thus, since many family firms have scarce resources Accordingly, CSR could help a family firm preserve and must use them efficiently to survive (Ward, 1997), it its resource base during the handover of the firm, thus is vital to understand which CSR activities will help them contributing to the longevity of the firm as this is one of achieve the best results. Following Stafford et al. (1999) the most crucial issues of family firm research. Research SFBT, a division of family and firm could help clarify empirically proving this assumption would create a busi- these issues. Case studies could be used to identify rela- ness case for CSR in family firms. Therefore, this assump- tionships or disagreements between antecedents and out- tion must be addressed in future research. comes. Their results could be checked quantitatively after- ward using panel surveys to analyze the long-term effect Research Question 6: How and why do CSR activities of the measures. In future research, this black box must be increase the longevity of family firms? opened to prove which CSR activities help achieve which goals and whether family resources can help achieve those. Synthesis Research Question 5a: Which CSR activities (e.g., envi- ronmental, economic, or societal-related) are linked to Discussion which antecedents (i.e., family and firm antecedents) and outcomes (i.e., family and firm outcomes)? This systematic literature review has revealed that CSR is Research Question 5b: How and why do CSR activities still a relatively young phenomenon in family firm research link antecedents and outcomes of family firms? but is becoming increasingly relevant. This review was guided by three research questions focusing on a family A central goal of family firms is to ensure that the firm firm’s CSR antecedents and outcomes and their interac- can continue to provide a basis for the family’s existence tion. Using Stafford et al.’s (1999) SFBT to build our and even for later generations. While a handful of family theoretical framework, we examined the CSR antecedents firms achieve this goal, others do not (Koiranen, 2002 ). and outcomes of a family firm not only from a firm but Among the outcome-related studies, Antheaume et al. also from a family’s perspective. We contribute to the lit- (2013) found that CSR is a factor that positively influences erature by summarizing and integrating our findings in the longevity of family firms, indicating that CSR helps an over-arching framework, emphasizing family and firm family firms succeed over generations. In line with our antecedents, outcomes, and contextual factors. Thus, we SFBT-based theoretical framework, we found that substan- uncover the current research focus on family firms’ CSR tial family influence leads to a greater propensity of CSR antecedents and outcomes (see Fig. 3) and show which in family firms, which we trace back to family resources research questions need to be addressed in the future (see integrated within the family firm’s resource base. Those Table 10). Our framework helps researchers to organize help the family firm to respond more effectively to internal the existing research (e.g., Mariani et al., 2021) for a better and external disruptions and thus also to generate better understanding of this phenomenon and to address future outcomes out of CSR. problems and questions. In this regard, our review con- In this context, Pan et al. (2018) is particularly notewor- tributes to the further development of the research field. thy since they find that CSR positively affects the family Our review of the research literature shows that firm’s post-succession performance. They theorize that to although CSR is a firm-level construct, CSR decision- take over successfully, successors of the owning family making is not exclusively tied to the firm but also to the need to win the support of internal and external stake- family subsystem and the family resources it provides holders, which they can do by conducting CSR (Bammens (Dimov, 2017; Jang & Danes, 2013). The research litera- & Hünermund, 2020; Pan et al., 2018). Signaling good ture provides evidence that increased CSR is implemented intentions to their stakeholders through CSR will increase when the owning family strongly influences the family 1 3 C. Stock et al. firm. Consequently, the use of family resources (i.e., for family-owned SMEs, which have considerably fewer familiness) to conduct CSR activities is more pronounced resources available than their larger competitors. in smaller firms as it is more likely that an owning family In general, Jaskiewicz et al. (2017) called for a more will exert its influence in smaller firms than in larger ones robust integration of family science into this research area (Danes & Brewton, 2012). From an SFBT point of view, to better integrate the family as an organizational actor this is the case since the owning family directs more fam- into management research. Family science uses knowl- ily firm resources towards CSR activities from which it edge coming “from various disciplines such as psychol- benefits doubly—firstly by the firm outcomes and secondly ogy, sociology, and education” (Jaskiewicz et al., 2017, by the family outcomes. Thus, while not necessarily being p. 309) and, therefore, could provide new theoretical and more ethical than other firm owners, owning families are empirical insights for the explanation of CSR’s family inclined to use resources provided by the family subsystem outcomes. Since it can be assumed that family firms to conduct CSR on the firm level. do not conduct CSR purely out of altruism but also to Also, according to SFBT, as family influence increases, achieve specific outcomes (Zientara, 2017), this area family firms engage in CSR to cultivate their relation- of research offers many opportunities for future family ships with their stakeholders (Fitzgerald et al., 2010; firm-related studies. Furthermore, a holistic theoretical Stafford et al., 1999), and thereby generate positive firm framework such as Stafford et al.’s (1999) SFBT that con- outcomes and longevity for the family firm by leveraging siders the unity of family and firm as well as a permanent resources (Kuttner & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, 2018). As exchange of resources could be beneficial. This theory in the case of the antecedents-related studies, we con- assumes that the resources are transferred between the sequently also examined the outcomes-related studies family and the firm subsystem depending on the extent from a family and firm perspective. Concerning studies of the subsystems’ overlap (Danes et al., 2008; Fitzgerald examining the firm outcomes of CSR in family firms, we et al., 2010). By identifying the underlying reasons for the found that the research focuses strongly on non-financial interaction between family and firm, it might be possible outcomes, whereas financial outcomes have rarely been to better explain a family firm’s CSR behavior. researched. Regarding firm outcomes, we recommend that future research assign a higher priority to CSR’s financial Practical Implications firm outcomes. Family outcomes relating to the needs and goals of the owning family (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; The literature shows that family firms do indeed engage in Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017; Jaskiewicz et al., 2017) have more CSR. However, as the Waltons, Fords, Murdochs, and not yet been analyzed at all, which is surprising, as the Sacklers of this world show, they do not necessarily do so subsystems family and firm form a unit, and accordingly because they are more ethical than non-family firms but the outcomes should have a reciprocal influence (Staf- rather because they achieve positive results for the family ford et al., 1999). Further research could pinpoint which and the firm by doing so. Therefore, we must bear in mind family-related goals (Chrisman et al., 2010; Kotlar & De that family firms are run according to business principles Massis, 2013) family firms can achieve through CSR. and consequently conduct CSR for the benefit of the family While our literature review has shown that fam- and the firm, and not necessarily for the benefit of society. ily influence increases the likelihood of CSR activities If the lobby against unethical practices; child labor; slave within family firms, consequently increasing the prob- labor; pollution; animal cruelty, for example, did not exist, ability of achieving improved firm outcomes, we could would the chemical company continue to pollute the riv- not answer how CSR links both categories. Thus, the ers, or the sweatshop stop using child labor? These are rhe- question concerning the catalytic role of CSR remains a torical questions but show CSR’s potential for improving black box. Since family firms need to know which ante- the state of the world, on the one hand, and its limitations cedents can help them achieve their goals (i.e., family simultaneously. and firm outcomes) through CSR activities, this question Although we know that family firms use CSR activities, needs to be answered. Family firms must invest the opti- not for altruistic reasons but to benefit personally through mum set of family and firm resources into CSR activi- family and firm outcomes, we should not forget the positive ties, knowing that those investments will give them the aspects of those activities for society. Given the severe social strategic advantage they need; this is especially important and environmental problems the world faces, it is crucial to 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… motivate owning families to spend more resources on CSR Quantitative empirical approaches dominate research activities helping to avoid or overcome those problems and activities on CSR in family firms. To develop family firm- compensate for any damages incurred while conducting their specific explanatory approaches for the influence of the fam- business. Thus, lobbies and regulating authorities, be they ily on firm antecedents and the function of translation from local or governmental, should consider how to encourage drivers to outcomes and the emerging dynamics, we encour- companies—family-owned or not—to behave with CSR and age subsequent research to draw more on qualitative empiri- pursue ways and means to not only enhance their business, cal research in the form of case studies and experiments reputations, and profits but to behave in an ethical, sustain- for example (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014; Lude & Prügl, able manner at the same time. 2021). In particular, as research in family-owned SMEs is Since the analysis of the research literature shows that still under-represented (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2007), family firms are more sensitive to contextual factors than this approach should be conducted within family-owned non-family firms, more regulations for CSR activities can SMEs. Research in the field of large companies cannot be generate positive effects for society as a whole and for the transferred one-to-one to SMEs (Faller and zu Knyphausen- family firm itself. In particular, CSR activities directly Aufseß, 2018; Uhlaner et al., 2012), as the involvement and related to business (i.e., economic-related CSR) can ben- integration of the family are different (Miller & Le Breton- efit the firm. Whether a family firm or non-family firm and Miller, 2007), leading to a different use of resources as well regardless of the positive effect of family influence and the as goals (Block & Wagner, 2014b; Niehm et al., 2008). motivation behind conducting the CSR activities, our study Qualitative empirical research could help fathom the under- shows and research literature agrees that conducting CSR is lying motivations of family firms concerning CSR outcomes. a wise and far-sighted move for a company and a functional We also propose that such research focus more on the role of strategic tool a company can use to engender long-term the owning family and its members. Research considering profitability. this could break down the current barriers of the research field and develop it further. Limitations Following Tranfield et al.’s (2003) systematic litera- Conclusion ture review approach has helped us to expand the field of research, even if also accompanied by certain limitations. We postulate that research on CSR outcomes is necessary to When using a selection of databases, there is the possibility evaluate the effectiveness of family and firm antecedents. It that not all relevant papers have been considered. However, can also provide further insight into the unity of the family this limitation is counterbalanced partly by the detailed data- and the firm, especially its use of resources to achieve spe- base description, making the analysis more comprehensible. cic fi goals. These results lead to a better understanding of the Despite our systematic approach to searching and analyz- heterogeneity of family firms. Likewise, in future research, ing relevant publications, subjectivity cannot be entirely these approaches can be applied to non-family firms since, excluded. Nonetheless, this subjectivity has also helped us here, managers have a connection to the firms and can help to identify lacuna and proffer essential questions, which we determine the firm’s success through their use of resources hope will open up future research on CSR in family firms. such as social and human capital, which in turn enhances Also, we limited our literature search specifically to family their reputation. With this literature review, we want to moti- firms. It is possible that there is research in the field of fam- vate researchers to continue looking at CSR from different ily science that further explores the effects between family perspectives. and firm, as well as CSR activities, and that this review has not considered. Additionally, our chosen theoretical frame- work may impact the analysis and evaluation of the articles Appendix 1 consulted. Accordingly, we clarified our basis of interpreta- tion by explaining the theory and the underlying mechanism See Tables 11, 12, 13. in detail. 1 3 C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 Content Analysis of Family Firm Specific Corporate Social Responsibility Antecedents Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Abeysekera and Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 232 firms L USA Family ownership and manage- Fernando (2020) family manage- (9 year ment are negatively related to ment; founder panel) CSR strength. If the family firm name is named after the founder, this positively moderates the effect between family ownership and CSR concerns. During the financial crisis, family firms were associated with a lower CSR strength than non-family firms Adams et al. (1996) Family-firm status – – Qualitative 444 firms – USA Few differences exist in ethics- (cross-sec- related behavior between family tional) firms and non-family firms. Non-family firms, unlike family firms, have formal codes of ethics. Family firms pass on their ethical views informally through the corporate culture. Differences in ethical behavior arise from the company type Agostino & Ruberto Family ownership; – SEW, Stewardship Quantitative – – International This study provides evidence (2021) stakeholder pres- theory, Institu- (Interconti- on the positive relationship sure tional theory nental) between family firms and environment-friendly practices, also highlighting the positive moderating role of regulatory pressure Amann et al. (2012) Family ownership – – Quantitative 200 firms – Japan CSR ratings in terms of human and management (cross-sec- resource management and (combined) tional) environmental protection are higher for non-family firms than for family firms and there is no significant relationship between family firms/non-family firms regarding of CSR ratings of governance and social contribu- tion Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Amidjaya & Wid- Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 31 firms – Indonesia Family ownership, foreign owner- agdo, 2020 (also moderator); Institutional (5 year ship and corporate govern- foreign ownership theory panel) ance have a positive effect on (also moderator) sustainability reporting. Family and corporate ownership weakens the effect of governance corporate governance, foreign ownership has no moderating effect on corporate governance Aragón-Amonarriz Family social – – Qualitative 3 firms (13 S M Mexico In order to maintain responsi- et al. (2019) capital; family interviews) ble family ownership across commitment; fam- generations, family firms must ily values preserve their family social capital, consisting of a cogni- tive, structural, and relational dimension Arena and Michelon Family values; fam- – SEW Quantitative 167 firms – Italy High levels of the family control (2018) ily control; family and influence lead to lower identity; firm age environmental disclosure com- pared to non-family firms, with the effect weakening over the life cycle. Middle-aged family firms with high family identity provide more environmental disclosure, for example to protect and enhance the reputa- tion and image of the business, whereas old family firms with high family identity provide less environmental disclosure Bammens and Family ownership – Institutional theory Quantitative 4009 firms S M L Germany Family ownership has a positive Hünermund (mediated by com- (cross-sec- effect on the introduction of (2020) pany reputation tional) eco-innovations, partly due to motive); fam- the focus on the company repu- ily values and tation (mediator). This effect transgenerational is highest when the family has intention (modera- transgenerational intentions tor family owner- ship-reputation) C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Baù et al. (2021) Internationalization; – – Conceptual – – – This editorial of the special issue local roots on ‘Locality and Internation- alization of Family Firms’ discusses how family firms can build bridges between com- munities increasingly drifting apart. By bridging local and global environments, family firms can contribute to the sustainable development of the society Bendell (2022 family ownership – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 121 firms – USA The study’s results demonstrate and management; that family firms who were governmental highly engaged with their pressure; industry peers were significantly less pressure influenced by the possibility of negative peer reputation repercussions when making environmental innovation investment decisions compared with other firms Bennedsen et al. Family management – – Quantitative 2600 firms S M L Denmark Company characteristics, such (2019) (5 year as its policy/environment and panel) incentives and corporate culture have a strong influence on employee absenteeism. Like- wise, employee selection has a small influence on absenteeism. Overall, family firms have lower employee absenteeism Bergamaschi and Family ownership – – Theoretical – – – A family firm can be divided into Randerson (2016) the three subsystems fam- ily; ownership; and business. Depending on which subsystem is the dominant one, the family firm will follow different CSR patterns Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Berrone et al. (2010) Family ownership; – – Quantitative 194 firms – USA Family firms have a better family control (4 year environmental performance to panel) protect their SEW compared to non-family firms. This is particularly the case at the local level. This effect is independent of whether the family member serves as CEO, or CEO and board chair Bhatnagar et al. Family values; fam- – SEW, Agency Qualitative 14 firms (24 – India The Hindu beliefs of Dharma (2020) ily religion theory interviews) (duty to society) and Karma (right to act without expecting rewards) influence CSR-related philanthropy of family firms Bingham et al. Family involvement; – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 706 firms L USA Family firms demonstrate (2011) founder involve- Organizational (15 year more CSP social initiatives ment identity theory panel) than non-family firms, This effect becomes even greater with increasing family and/or founder involvement Biswas et al. (2019) Family ownership; – – Quantitative (16 year panel) – Bangladesh The relationship between corpo- corporate govern- rate governance guidelines and ance (mediator) CSR reporting is mediated by the quality of corporate govern- ance. Since family firms have a lower quality of corporate gov- ernance, they also have lower levels of CSR reporting Block (2010) Family ownership; – Social identity Quantitative 414 firms L USA Family firms downsize less than family manage- theory, Agency (9 year non-family firms. The decisive ment theory panel) factor is whether the company is family-owned or family-man- aged, as the positive effect can only be demonstrated in family- owned companies. Compared to non-family firms, family firms only downsize when this is necessary to protect their employees, and thus act more socially responsibly than non- family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Block and Wagner Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 399 firms L USA Family ownership as well as (2014a) family manage- (9 year founder ownership reduces CSR ment panel) concerns, whereby founder ownership has a stronger influ- ence. Family management, as well as founder management, increases CSR concerns. In this case, family management has the stronger effect Block and Wagner Family ownership – – Quantitative 286 firms L USA Family ownership has a positive (2014b) (11 year effect on diversity-, employee-, panel) environmental-, and product- related aspects of CSR perfor- mance and a negative impact on community-related CSR. The latter is a consequence of the owner family supporting the community through private rather than business channels Blodgett et al. Family values; ethi- – – Quantitative 172 firms – International Comparing mission statements, (2011) cal values (cross-sec- (Interconti- U.S. family firms have more tional) nental) ethical values than international family firms and non-family firms in the U.S.. U.S. family firms focus on “integrity” and “honesty”, while international family firms focus on “envi- ronmentalism”, “globalism”, and “CSR”. An increase in the ethical values of family firms around the world has occurred over time Cabeza-García et al. Family owner- – SEW Quantitative 105 firms L Spain Family firms have a lower com- (2017) ship; governance; (7 year mitment to CSR reporting foreign ownership panel) than non-family firms. With (moderator) regard to the second-largest shareholder, foreign ownership moderates this effect negatively, while the presence of a second family even increases this effect Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Campopiano et al. Family ownership; – Stewardship theory Quantitative 130 firms S M Italy Family ownership has a positive (2014) family manage- (cross-sec- effect on the company’s philan- ment tional) thropic involvement, while fam- ily involvement in management has a negative effect. Family owners invest more in their business to build reputation and be a better steward in the com- munity to support the longevity of the business Campopiano and De Family owner- Institutional theory, Qualitative 98 firms M L Italy Through CSR, family firms try to Massis (2015) ship and family Grounded theory (cross-sec- positively enhance their reputa- management; tional) tion. For this reason, they are institutional set- less influenced by institutional ting; community settings and focus more on the embeddedness expected social outcomes of CSR. Since they focus CSR less on institutional requirements and more on the interests of the stakeholders to be influenced, the variance of their CSR reports is higher Campopiano et al. Family management – Self-construal Quantitative 63 family firms L International Female members on the board (2019) theory (cross-sec- (Interconti- of family businesses exert a tional) nental) positive influence on CSR if they are not family members of the controlling family. In contrast, they only have a posi- tive influence on philanthropic engagement if they are family members of the controlling family Chen and Cheng Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative (4-year panel) L Taiwan Public family firms acquire CSR (2020) and/or manage- Neo-institutional assurances less frequently than ment (combined); theory non-family firms. This relation- mimetic pressure ship is positively moderated by from industry mimetic pressure from industry (moderator) peers C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Chen and Liu (2022) family ownership – SEW Quantitative 58 papers – International The study’s findings show and management; (meta-anal- (Interconti- evidence of greater CSP among culture type (mod- ysis) nental) family firms compared to erator) non-family firms. The family firm–CSP relationship was moderated by cultural values such as ingroup collectivism, humane orientation and future orientation, and the moderating effects depended on cultural tightness Cordeiro et al. Family ownership – Neo-Institutional Quantitative 500 firms L India Family ownership and multina- (2018) Theory (4 year tional ownership have a positive panel) impact on a firm’s CSR rating. State ownership, on the other hand, leads to a decline in CSR ratings Cordeiro et al. Board gender diver- – SEW, Agency Quantitative 751 firms L USA Board gender diversity is posi- (2020) sity; family owner- theory, Resource (6 year tively associated with corporate ship (moderator) dependency panel) environmental performance. theory This relationship is positively moderated by family ownership, but also by being a dual-class firm Cruz et al. (2014) Family ownership – Organizational Quantitative 598 firms L International Family firms conduct more CSR and management identity theory, (4 year (Europe) towards external stakehold- (combined); SEW, Stakeholder panel) ers, less CSR towards internal national CSR theory stakeholders, and are at the standards (mod- same time less sensitive to eration); industry national CSR standards or those CSR standards of their industry (modera- (moderation); tion). Family firms place their declining perfor- corporate survival above their mance (modera- SEW and their CSR activities tion) are therefore more sensitive to declining performance than those of non-family firms (moderation) Cruz et al. (2019) Family manage- – – Quantitative 152 firms L USA Women in boards of family ment; non -family/ (5 year firms affect CSP positively. family female panel) This effect can be observed for directors outside non-family and inside family women directors Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Cuadrado-Balles- Independent direc- – – Quantitative 575 firms – International Due to a higher proportion of teros et al. (2015) tors; family owner- (7 year (Interconti- independent directors in a ship (moderator) panel) nental) firm’s board, a firm discloses more CSR. Owning families, on the other hand, use their position to influence independ- ent directors to make fewer CSR disclosures. Thus, family ownership negatively moderates this relationship Cuadrado-Balles- Family ownership; – – Quantitative 547 firms – International Due to less formalization, family teros et al. (2017) formal code of (9 year (Interconti- firms tend to use less formal ethics panel) nental) codes of ethics than non-family firms, which mediates the nega- tive relationship between family ownership and CSP Cui et al. (2018) Family ownership; – Behavioral agency Quantitative 177 firms L USA Family management positively family manage- theory (8 year moderates the positive effect ment (moderator); panel) of family ownership on the long-term incen- CSR performance. Family and tive compensation non-family CEOs are incentiv- (moderator) ized to increase CSR through long-term incentive compensa- tion (moderation), although the effect is lower for family CEOs than for non-family CEOs Dal Maso et al. Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 4932 firms – International Listed family firms have lower (2020) human resource (14 year (Interconti- environmental performance practices (media- panel) nental) than non-family firms. The tor) study shows that this negative effect is mediated by a lower investment in employee training and development practices. This is due to a stronger bargaining power of the dominant coalition and a lower firm performance. Due to less investment in train- ing and development Dawson et al. (2020) Family manage- – Signaling theory, Quantitative 161 family S M Italy Business legality increases with ment; family Ability perspec- firms (2 year the level of family involvement generation tive, Willingness panel) in management. Likewise, the perspective level of generation has a posi- tive influence C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Dayan et al. (2019) Family values; – Mindfulness theory Quantitative 150 firms – United Arab Mindfulness in protection the firms capabilities (cross-sec- Emirates SEW dimensions “identifica- (mediator) tional) tion of family members with the firm” and “binding social ties” influences the environ- mental strategy of family firms. They have a positive effect on production of sustainable prod- ucts and processes. This effect is positively mediated by the capabilities of the company Dekker and Hasso Family-firm status; – – Quantitative 1452 firms S M Australia Private family firms have a lower (2016) social embedded- (longitudinal) environmental orientation than ness (moderator) non-family firms. By contrast, when family firms are strongly embedded in the social commu- nity, they exhibit a higher level of environmental orientation Delmas and Ger- Family values (heir – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 281 firms – USA Using wineries as examples, it gaud (2014) succession inten- (cross-sec- is shown that the intention to tion; moderator of tional) pass on the family business to quality motivation, the next generation has a posi- market motivation, tive effect on the adoption of and eco-certifica- eco-certificates. In this context, tion) passing on the business moder- ates the effect of market motiva- tion and quality motivation on eco-certification positives Déniz and Suárez Family value – – Quantitative 112 firms S M Spain Depending on the owning fam- (2005) (2 year ily’s values, family firms tend to panel) adopt a classic, socio-economic, or philanthropic approach to CSR. Most family firms in the sample followed a philanthropic approach, through which they tried to maintain broad relation- ships with society Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Dick et al. (2021) family ownership – SEW Quantitative 343 (cross- M Poland This study demonstrates that and management; sectional) founder-controlled family overconfidence firms show low levels of CSR (moderator) engagement. Moreover, over- confident executives in these firms tend to exhibit superior CSR performance Dou et al. (2019) Family ownership; – Strategic reference Quantitative 454 family – China In family-owned businesses, family commit- point theory, firms (cross- commitment and long-term ment (moderator); Organizational section) orientation is needed to imple- long term orienta- identity theory, ment a proactive environmental tion (mediator) SEW strategy. In family-owned businesses, commitment and long-term orientation is needed to implement a proactive environmental strategy. The mediation effect of long-term orientation is only significant if the level of family commitment is high Discua Cruz (2020) Family values; fam- – Stewardship theory, Qualitative 1 firm (inter - M Honduras In line with their family values ily religion Paradox theory views) and religion, the owning family of Honduran firm AsphaCo frequently engaged in CSR activities towards the com- munity and employees. Since they did not engage in CSR to better represent their firm, they preferred to keep it anonym and not report it publicly Du (2015) Corporate environ- – – Quantitative 3008 family – China Family-owned firms use corpo- mental miscon- firms (cross- rate philanthropic giving to duct; CEO’s sectional) distract from their corporate political network environmental misconduct. (moderator) Since politically well-connected CEOs can avoid high personal penalties due to their political contacts, this effect is nega- tively moderated by the CEO’s political network C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Du et al. (2016) Media coverage; – Institutional theory, Quantitative 733 family – China Due to the higher visibility that family ownership Stakeholder firms (7 year comes with more media cover- (moderator) theory panel) age, managers of family firms conduct more philanthropic giving. As the dependency on stakeholders decreases with family ownership, there is a negatively moderating effect of family ownership between media coverage and corporate philanthropic giving Dyer and Whetten Family ownership – Self-interest theory, Quantitative 261 firms L USA In terms of social initiatives there (2006) and management Social identity (10 year are no differences between fam- (combined) theory panel) ily firms and non-family firms. Family firms are more likely to avoid social concerns than non- family firms El Ghoul et al. Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative 335 firms – International In order to achieve personal (2016) (10 year (Asia) benefits, increasing family panel) ownership allows family owners to divert the firm resources to activities that bring them financial benefits. Furthermore, this is particularly true for fam- ily firms with greater agency problems and from countries with weak institutions El-Kassar et al. Audit committee; – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 203 employees Employees Lebanon Audit committees have a positive (2018) family manage- Agency theory of family impact on CSR practices in ment (moderator) firms (cross- the areas of health, refugees, sectional) community, and environment. In addition, family management has a positive moderating effect on the impact of CSR towards community, the environment, and health Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Ertuna et al. (2019) Family values; state – Institutional logics Qualitative 2 firms (case – Turkey This study compares the CSR regulations theory study) logics of a local hotel and a hotel chain. The local hotel adapts its CSR logic to local conditions and embeds it in the organization. The CSR logic of the hotel chain, which is speci- fied by the headquarters, is only partially adopted and varies in its interpretation and implemen- tation. Local needs and priori- ties are only implemented to a limited extent. The sustainabil- ity strategies in both companies are shaped by the family or the family headquarters Fitzgerald et al. Attitude towards – Sustainable family Quantitative 334 family- S M USA Members of the owning family (2010) community; com- business theory firm house- with a very positive attitude munity vulner- holds (2 year towards their local communities ability; family firm panel) were more willing to support resources their local community. Those with higher education were more likely to do so by taking leadership positions in the community, while individuals with more household assets and profit companies were more likely to provide financial assis- tance to their communities Fritz et al. (2021) Family ownership – Institutional theory Qualitative 12 firms S M L France They find that family firms take and management a specific approach in supply chain management, especially that the social sustainability dimension is crucial for family firms. For non-family firms, the focus is on the ratio of costs to benefits and client satisfaction C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research García-Sánchez Hostile environ- – SEW, Stakeholder Quantitative 956 firms L International This study shows that family-con- et al., (2021 mental conditions theory (9 year (Interconti- trolled firms adopt CSR strate- (moderatred by panel) nental) gies and balance the demands family ownership of internal and external interest and management) groups to preserve their SEW while facing fierce competition, resource scarcity, and penurious economic conditions Gallo (2004) Family-firm status – – Quantitative 44 academics People working International Family firms fulfill their respon- (cross-sec- on university (Interconti- sibility to create wealth and tional) institutions nental) provide products for society to a high degree. But there must be a greater focus on sustainable and long-term execution, oth- erwise it will only be generated for one generation Ge and Micelotta Firm visibility; – – Quantitative 3075 firms – China Firms that are more sensitive (2019) political linkages; (cross-sec- to institutional pressure due family ownership tional) to firm visibility and politi- and management cal linkages are more likely (moderator) to engage in philanthropy and further donate larger amounts. While family ownership has no effect on the giving behavior, it does moderate the relationship between institutional pressure and the amount of philanthropic giving positively Graafland et al. Family-firm status; – – Quantitative 111 firms S L Netherlands Family firms and non-family (2003) firm size (cross-sec- firms show very similar patterns tional) regarding to the use of instru- ments such as codes of conduct, ISO certification, social report- ing, social handbooks, and confidential. These instruments are influenced by the size of the company Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Graafland (2020) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 3816 family S M L International The relationship between owner- family manage- firms (cross- (Europe) ship of a family firm and envi- ment; firm size sectional) ronmentally friendly production (moderator) is stronger for smaller than for larger firms and is moderated by the involvement of family members in the management of the firm in a non-linear way. Differences between family and non-family firms are greater in small firms with family and non-family managers. Likewise, the best environmental perfor- mance is achieved in family firms managed by families and non-family members Huang et al. (2009) Family ownership green technical – Quantitative 235 firms – Taiwan Using the chemical, electronics and management innovation/green (cross-sec- and information technology (moderator: nega- administrative tional) industries, it is shown that tive (regulatory innovation there is a positive correlation stakeholder pres- between the degree of natural sure; market share- environmental pressure from holder pressure); stakeholders and the introduc- positive (pressure tion of green innovations. The from internal moderating effect of family stakeholders) firms leads to a negative effect of regulatory stakeholder pres- sure and market shareholder pressure on green innovations and a positive one of pressure from internal stakeholders. These differences are explained by organizational culture and core values Iyer and Lulseged Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 397 firms L USA There is no statistically signifi- (2013) and management Legitimacy (cross-sec- cant difference in the probabil- (combined) theory, Stake- tional) ity of CSR disclosure (sustaina- holder theory bility reporting) between family firms and non-family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Kallmuenzer et al. Family values; com- – Random utility Quantitative 152 firms S M Austria Family firms in rural tourism are (2018) munity embedded- theory motivated by environmental ness/stakeholder and social considerations after pressure a financial security, which gives a greater benefit than a greater financial profit, through the family conditional SEW dynamics and the resulting CSR increase Kariyapperuma and SEW – Family logics Qualitative 72 firm web- S M New Zealand Antecedents of heterogenei- Collins (2021) sites ties (i.e., family goals, family values, culture and ethics, and the imprints of the founders and the next generation) were revealed with a discussion of three typologies of family firms: family first, business first and upstarts Kim and Lee (2018) Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative 200 firms S M L South Korea Family firms have a lower CSP and management (3 year than non-family firms, which (combined); fam- panel) is even lower when a family ily CEO; family firm is managed by a family firm type CEO. Chaebols (family-run or controlled conglomerate) have a higher CSP than non-chaebol firms Kim et al. (2017) Top management – Behavioral theory, Quantitative 97 firms – USA Family influence has a positive attention to the Institutional (10 year moderating effect on the rela- natural environ- theory panel) tionship between top manage- ment; family ment’s attention to the natural ownership and environment and proactive management environmental action (combined) (mod- erator) Kim et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Place theory Quantitative 2000 firms L USA Family ownership reduces the population size (14 year probability of layoffs. The size (moderator) panel) of the population of the location in which the company operates has a negative moderating effect on this relationship Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Labelle et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW, Agency Quantitative 1264 firms – International Family firms have a lower CSP family control; theory (cross-sec- (Interconti- than non-family firms. In family stakeholder/share- tional) nental) firms, family control (voting holder-oriented rights) up to 36% increases the economy CSP in family firms, whereas family control more than 37% decreases their CSP. Family firms operating in stakeholder- oriented countries pay more attention to social issues than those operating in more shareholder-oriented countries Lamb and Butler Family ownership; – Stewardship theory, Quantitative 153 firms Fortune 500 USA Family ownership and the pres- (2018) family manage- SEW, Multiple (13 year ence of a family CEO increase ment; founding agency theory panel) CSR strength. In terms of CSR family presence concerns, the presence of a family CEO and a founding family has a negative effect Le Breton-Miller Being a family firm – – Conceptual – – – Characteristics that positively and Miller (2016) influence sustainability in family firms are: long-term orientation, reputation and agency costs. A negative effect can result from the following factors: family conflicts, SEW, and exploitation of smaller shareholders at the expense of sustainability. Important mediating roles (both positive and negative) could be family values, educational back- ground, organizational factors, governance arrangements and environmental forces López-González Family ownership; – SEW, Agency the- Quantitative 956 firms, L International Family ownership has a positive andet al. (2019) family manage- ory, Stakeholder (9 year (Interconti- effect on CSR performance. ment (moderator); theory, Institu- panel) nental) This relationship is positively market munifi- tional theory moderated by family manage- cence (moderator) ment and family directors on the board of directors, but negatively moderated by high market munificent C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Ma et al., (2022 Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 2671 firms L China This study reveals that SEW will family manage- (9 year enhance environmental respon- ment panel) sibility when a family member serves as the company’s chairman. There is a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between the length of family involvement and corporate envi- ronmental responsibility Madden et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Socioemotional Quantitative 1436 firms L USA Family ownership positively Family firm age selectivity theory (8 year affects investments in CSR (moderator) panel) activities. As family firms age, they become more selective and invest less heavily in CSR activities. Family firms age acts as a moderator of the relation- ship between family ownership and CSR Maggioni and San- Environmental non- – Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 2275 firms S M L Italy Environmental non-profit tangelo (2017) profit organiza- Organizational (cross-sec- organizations operating in the tions (substitutes science tional) same local context influence for environmental family businesses more than regulations) non-family businesses to imple- ment more green investment strategies. This is due to their scarcity of resources, risk aversion and local roots, which makes family businesses more sensitive to their pressure. Envi- ronmental non-profit organiza- tions can serve as a substitute for sustainability compliance in sectors with low regulation Marques et al. Family involvement; – Stewardship theory, Qualitative 12 firms (inter - – Spain In family firms with family (2014) family values SEW views) CEOs, but more frequently in family firms with a high family ownership, the values of iden- tification and commitment are particularly evident. These have a strong impact on workplace- and community-related CSR Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Martínez-Ferrero Family ownership; – Agency theory Quantitative 1275 firms – International Family firms are taking more et al. (2018) managerial discre- (8 year (Interconti- CSR measures to meet stake- tion panel) nental) holder demands and thereby gain greater discretionary power, for example to compen- sate for the manipulation of profits Martínez-Ferrero Board size; board – Agency theory, Quantitative 536 firms – International In stakeholder-oriented countries, et al. (2017) independency; Institutional (8 year (Interconti- board size and board independ- family ownership theory panel) nental) ence have a positive effect on (moderator) sustainability assurance, which is further positively moderated by family ownership. Board size and board independence also have a positive effect on sustainability reports provided by professional accountants, which are not influenced by family ownership McGuire et al. Family owner- – – Quantitative 473 firms L USA Family firms are less likely than (2012) ship and family non-family businesses to engage management; cor- in negative or socially harmful porate governance activities. In general, corporate (moderator) governance is not related to the social performance of the company. However, it has a moderating effect on the rela- tionship between family control and social performance Memili et al. (2020) Family ownership; – Psychological capi- Quantitative 192 family S M Turkey Using data of the hospitality and long term orienta- tal theory firms (cross- tourism industry, it is shown tion (moderator) sectional) that SEW has a negative effect on firm performance (sales) and that family firm psychological capital mitigates this effect. Likewise, this effect can be mitigated by a long-term orien- tation, if non-financial strengths (family firm psychological capital) are used and the effects of financially focused goals are minimized C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Meier and Schier Family management – Behavioral agency Quantitative 555 firms L International This study provides evidence (2021) model (4 year (Interconti- that family CEOs are positively panel) nental) associated with both external and internal CSR, whereas non-family CEOs within family firms tend to be negatively associated with both external and internal CSR Miroshnychenko Family ownership – Agency theory, Quantitative 26 articles S M L International This study concludes that the et al. (2022) Stewardship (meta-anal- (Interconti- average effect of family involve- theory ysis) nental) ment on environmental perfor- mance is negative, albeit small Muttakin and Khan Family ownership – Legitimacy theory Quantitative 135 firms L Bangladesh Family ownership has a negative (2014) (5 year effect on CSR disclosures. panel) Export oriented sectors, firm size and industry sectors also have a positive effect on CSR disclosures Nadeem et al. Family ownership; – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 399 firms L UK Board gender diversity has a (2020) board gender Gender socialization (10 year positive effect on stakeholder diversity theory panel) value creation. This effect can be observed for economic, social and environmental per- formance. Even though female directors of family firms are associated with environmental value creation, they have no impact on economic and social value creation Oh et al. (2019) Family manage- – – Quantitative 290 firms L South Korea Outside directors’ ownership, as ment; outside (5 year well as board educational diver- directors’ owner- panel) sity, have a positive moderating ship (moderator); effect on CSR in firms with board educational low family management but a diversity (modera- negative moderating effect on tor) CSR in firms with high family management Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Palma et al. (2022) Family ownership; – Legitimacy theory, Quantitative 360 (cross- – International This study reveals that greater family manage- SEW sectional) (Europe) prominence is attributed to ment; billionair sustainability issues on corpo- ownership rate websites when the family company’s CEO is a family member and the level of family ownership is lower. The promi- nence attributed to sustainabil- ity issues on corporate websites by family companies owned by European billionaires is greater than that of family companies not owned by billionaires, but only when using a less stringent measure of prominence Peake et al. (2017) Owning family’s – Social capital theory Quantitative 279 family- S USA The owning family’s duration duration in a com- firm house- in a community is positively munity; owning holds (2 year associated with their participa- family’s commu- panel) tion in community develop- nity satisfaction; ment activities. The greater the female manage- level of dissatisfaction with ment (moderator) the community, the greater the willingness to participate in the work of supporting community development. Female manage- ment moderates the relationship between community satisfaction and participation in community development C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Rees and Rodionova Family ownership; – – Quantitative 3893 firms – International Closely held equity and family (2015) liberal/coordinated (11 year (Interconti- ownership have a negative market economy panel) nental) impact on environmental, social, and governance perfor- mance. In terms of governance control, closely held equity shows no impact on environ- mental and social rankings, whereas family ownership continues to have a negative impact. These results are found in liberal market economies and coordinated market economies, whereas the latter generally reflects weaker performance and considerable diversity Richards et al. Family influence; – – Quantitative 86 firms – International Using the coffee, tea, and choco- (2017) domestic world or (cross-sec- (Interconti- late industry as an example, the civic-green world tional) nental) study shows that investment rhetoric, multi- in sustainability certificates generation control depends on the chosen legiti- (whether one macy principles and the reflec- family had been tion of identity orientation, the the firm's main “civic and green” world and the blockholder for at “domestic” world. The domes- least two genera- tic dependency of the compa- tions) nies has a negative impact on investments for sustainability certifications, because the legit- imacy communication takes place in a different way. The methods of legitimacy depend on the generational integration of the family firm. Multi-gener - ational family firms can better integrate socially responsible attributes through its long-term stakeholder relationships and therefore do not need sustain- ability certifications Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Sahasranamam et al. Family ownership; – Agency theory, Quantitative (8 year panel) L India Family ownership is positively (2020) business group Institutional related to community-related owned (modera- theory CSR. There is no significant tor) moderating effect of busi- ness group ownership in this relationship Samara et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW Qualitative 146 family - International Family firms show positive SEW family manage- firms (cross- (Interconti- and higher environmental social ment; family sectional) nental) performance when 100% of commitment; the business is in family hands, generation of man- when the first generation is agement; outside still involved in management, directors when the board is dominated by family members, and when family involvement in man- agement is low. When many family members are involved in management, the negative effects of SEW become visible and less social performance is performed. Non-Anglo-Saxon countries focus more on long- term stakeholder welfare and less on managerial compensa- tion to firm profitability. There- fore, they achieve high social performance (a) when family- dominated management is com- plemented by a board of family and non-family members, (b) when business ownership is shared with external parties and non-family board members mediate conflicts between them, and (c) when there is shared business ownership and the top management team is dominated by the first generation C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Sánchez-Medina Family values; – Sustainable family Quantitative 72 family firms S Mexico Environmental pressure leads and Díaz-Pichardo environmental business theory (cross-sec- to the introduction of quality (2017) values (mediator); tional) practices in artisanal family environmental firms through the formation pressure of environmental values. This effect is completely mediated by the environmental values of the owner family Seckin-Halac et al. family ownership; – Agency theory, Quantitative 4479 firms L International The study finds by a moder - (2021) Ownership con- Stakeholder (6 year (Interconti- ated path analysis that family centration theory, Theory of panel) nental) shareholding weakens the direct planned behavior effect of ownership concentra- tion on board gender diversity and its indirect effect on corpo- rate social responsibility Sharma and Sharma Family influence; – Theory of planned Conceptual – – – High family involvement has a (2011) family values; behavior positive effect on the exercise relationship of the proactive environmen- conflict (negative tal strategy. This intention moderator) is increased if there are low relationship conflicts within the controlling family in the family business, as resources for implementation can then be better provided Terlaak et al. (2018) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 259 firms L South Korea Family ownership and the family manage- (7 year propensity of a business group ment panel) to disclose environmental performance information have a U-shape relationship. This U-shape is moderated and strengthened by the presence of a family CEO Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Uhlaner et al. (2004) Family firm status; – Stakeholder theory Quantitative 42 family firms S M Netherlands The family character of the busi- family genera- (cross-sec- ness most frequently impacts tion; community tional) employee, client, and supplier embeddedness; relationships. Statistically firm size; fam- significant interaction effects ily firm name are reported for the following includes family’s moderator variables: generation surname of the owner; company tenure in the community; community size; company size; and inclu- sion of the family surname in the business name Uhlaner et al. (2012) Family influence – Theory of planned Quantitative 689 firms S M Netherlands SMEs with a greater family influ- (power, experi- behavior (2 year ence are more likely to engage ence, culture); panel) in environmental management number of owners practices. This increases in fam- (moderator) ily firms with larger business- owning families (moderation) Wiklund (2006) Family ownership – Agency theory Conceptual – – – Family firms show more positive CSR behavior, due to the bond between the family and the company Yu et al. (2015) Family ownership; – SEW Quantitative 229 firms – Taiwan Family firms have a better CSR majority owner- (5 year performance than non-family ship; independent panel) firms. SEW, measured by the directors majority shareholding and the proportion of independent directors on the board, has a positive effect on CSR Yu et al. (2021) Family ownership – Agency theory Quantitative (6-year panel) L South Korea This study shows that family and management; firms with ownership, opera- provincial environ- tional, and strategic control can mental regulations achieve higher environmental performance within a province with more stringent environ- mental regulations C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Size Country of Key Findings Research Zamir and Saeed Closeness to – Legitimacy theory Quantitative 649 firms – International Firms located closer to the (2020) financial markets; Institutional theory (6-year panel) (Interconti- financial centers have a higher family ownership nental) CSR disclosure rates compared (moderator); fam- to their more distant counter- ily commitment parts. This effect is positively moderated by family ownership and being a listed company. The negative effect of distance on CSR disclosure is stronger in countries with higher income inequality Zheng et al. (2017) Family values; – Social information Qualitative Single case L China The study examines why employ- Machiavellian cor- processing theory study ees exhibit counterproductive porate culture (low Grounded theory work behavior. This is caused, organizational jus- among other things, by Machi- tice, psychological avellian corporate culture, contract violation, which is characterized by low low trust) trust and strong control, as well as psychological contract viola- tions, as these factors leads to the idea of mutual exploitation S small, M medium, L large (listed) Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 12 Content Analysis of Family Firm specific Corporate Social Responsibility outcomes Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Adomako et al. (2019) – Firm performance Resource-based view Quantitative 253 firms (cross-sec- S M Ghana Environmental sustaina- (insignificant) theory tional) bility orientation shows no significant impact on performance in fam- ily businesses, but is enhanced in non-family businesses Hsueh (2018) – External non-financial Source credibility Quantitative Study 1: 167 NGO’s – International (Intercon- Family firms have a outcomes theory (cross-sectional), tinental) larger credibility gap in Study 2: 335 stake- publishing sustainabil- holder ity reporting than non- family businesses. This gap can be reduced by an independent assur- ance service. Family businesses derive greater value with rea- sonable assurance than non-family firms Lin et al. (2020) – Credit rating (moder- Agency theory Quantitative 1475 firms (9 year L Taiwan CSR has a moderating ated by family owner- panel) and partial mediation ship) effect between corpo- rate governance and credit rating. However, this connection could not be established for family firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 12 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Martínez-Ferrero et al. – Information asymmetry Agency theory Quantitative 548 firms (7 year – International (Intercon- CSR disclosures reduce (2018) (moderated by family panel) tinental) information asym- ownership) metry, which in turn also positively effects the level of CSR disclosures. Fam- ily ownership has a negative moderating effect on the relation- ship between CSR and information asym- metry, reversing the original negative effect. The effect between information asymmetry and CSR is negatively moderated by family ownership, reversing the original effect in family firms Maung et al. (2020) – Financial market reac- Signaling theory Quantitative (10 year panel) – USA The financial markets tion (moderated by react positively to the family management) donations of religious CEOs and are further positively moderated by is the presence of a founder or family CEO Naciye Sekerci et al. – Investors reaction Signaling theory Quantitative 133 firms (11 year L France Markets react more (2022) (moderated by family panel) positively to CSR news ownership and man- from family firms than agement) from non-family firms Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 12 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Country of Research Key Findings Firm Size Pan et al. (2018) – Financial outcomes; – Quantitative 885 firms (9 year – China Family firms exhibit post-succession per- panel) more corporate formance philanthropy when the handover to the second generation is imminent. In the process, better market and account- ing performance is achieved in addition to generally poor per- formance, indicating a strategic deployment Panwar et al. (2014) – External non-financial – Quantitative 278 US residents – USA Firm outsiders perceive outcomes (cross-sectional) the legitimacy of CSR measures of family- owned firms as higher than those of publicly listed firms Samara and Arenas – Internal non-financial – Conceptual – – – Family firms that pro- (2017) outcomes; long-term mote fairness in the family firm survival workplace can benefit and success; firm by preserving their rep- reputation utation and enhancing the long-term survival of the business Wagner (2010) – Innovation with high – Quantitative 252 firms (11 year L USA There is a positive link social benefits panel) between CSP and inno- (moderated by family vation with high social ownership) benefits. This relation- ship is positively moderated by family ownership S small, M medium, L large (listed) C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 Content Analysis of Family Firm specific Corporate Social Responsibility Antecedents and Outcomes Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Ahmad et al. (2020) Family involvement Financial outcomes Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 489 owner & execu- S M Pakistan Family involvement (family com- (financial strength); Transaction cost tives (150 family in the company mitment; family internal non- economics theory firms) (cross- (through fam- continuity; family financial outcomes sectional) ily commitment, control; family (internal capabili- continuity, control, enrichment) ties; strategic per- enrichment) has a spective; learning; positive influence growth); external on the sustain- non-financial out- able survival of the comes (customer company (financial strength, customer orientation) orientation, internal capabilities, strategic perspective, learning & growth). This effect is partially mediated by CSR Antheaume et al. Family values; com- Internal non- Grounded theory Qualitative 17 family firms (6 M L France Longevity of family (2013) munity embedded- financial outcomes interviews) firms is promoted by ness (longevity) interdependencies and the networking of different areas, the embedding of the family in the business as well as the embedding of the business in society and the pass- ing on of capital to the next generation. Sustainable develop- ment is preferred to short-term profits Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Biscotti et al. (2018) Family ownership; Internal non- Social identity Qualitative 262 firms (10 year – International The EMAS-certified environmental financial outcomes theory, Institu- panel) environmental management sys- (environmental tional theory management system tems (knowledge product innovation) has a moderating management) effect in family businesses on the knowledge manage- ment practices of employee training and development and, through this, on green product innovation. The ISO 14001 certified envi- ronmental manage- ment system does not lead to proactive behavior in family and non-family busi- nesses Choi et al. (2019) Family ownership; Firm performance – Quantitative 198 (6 year panel) L South Korea Family ownership has being a chaebol a negative effect firm (moderator) on corporate social performance (CSP). This effect is lower (moderation) in chaebol (family- run or controlled conglomerate) firms than in non-chaebol firms C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Craig and Dibrell Family ownership Financial perfor- Stewardship theory Quantitative 396 firms (cross- S M USA Family firms are better (2006) and management mance (firm per - sectional) able to promote formance); internal environmentally non-financial friendly policies outcomes (firm than non-family innovation) firms, although non- family businesses place more emphasis on this. In family businesses, this leads to improved business innovation and higher financial performance Dangelico (2017) Family ownership Green product – Quantitative 188 firms (cross- S M L Italy Family firms show a and management development sectional) positive effect on (differentiation); the differentiation radicalness or mar- of green product ket performance of developments. They green products (not show no significance significant) in the radicality or market performance of green product Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Doluca et al. (2018) Family ownership Financial outcomes Stakeholder theory, Quantitative 633 firm observa- S M L Germany Compared to non- and management (stabilizing, Institutional theory tions (4 year panel) family firms, family (no significant economic perfor- firm show fewer difference (but mance); internal environment-related stabilizing effect non-financial activities and fewer over time) outcomes (stabiliz- beneficial product, ing, environmental process and organi- product/process zational innovations innovation) and services at the beginning of the study. In the process of the study, a convergence process can be identified, as family businesses are catching up with non-family firms. Family firms also show less volatility in their environmen- tal behavior Kashmiri and Family name Financial outcomes; – Quantitative 130 family firms L USA Family firms that Mahajan (2010) return on assets (5 year panel) carry the family (performance) name compared to family businesses without the family name have higher corporate citizen- ship, representation of their customers' voice on the top management team, higher strategic focus (resource allocation to adver- tising), and better performance (higher return on invest- ment). Performance is mediated by higher corporate citi- zenship and stronger strategic focus C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Kashmiri and Family management; External non- – Quantitative 107 family firms & L USA Family firms that Mahajan (2014a) family name; ethi- financial outcomes; 1294 product intro- bear the founder’s cal product-related financial outcomes duction announce- name have higher behavior (media- (increasing of the ments (3 year abnormal stock tor) abnormal stock panel) returns surrounding returns) the firm's new prod- uct introductions compared to family firms without the founder's name. This effect is mediated by the ethical behavior of the firms, includ- ing the fact that they are less involved in product-related controversies Kashmiri and Family ownership Firm performance – Quantitative 275 firms (10 year L USA CSR mediates the Mahajan (2014b) and management panel) relationship between (combined) family ownership/ management and firm performance. In contrast to non- family firms, family firms do not reduce their CSR during a recession, which results in higher firm performance Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Liu et al. (2017) Family ownership Accrual-based – Quantitative (8 year panel) L USA Family firms tend to and family man- earnings manage- have a higher CSR agement (com- ment; real earnings performance than bined) management non-family firms and have less accrual- based earnings management and real earnings man- agement. Further- more, the positive effect of CSR on earnings manage- ment described in the research is attributable to family involvement Niehm et al. (2008) Family firm size Subjective busi- – Quantitative 221 family-firm S USA The size of a family ness performance; households (2 year firm has a positive objective financial panel) impact on the CSR performance dimension “com- munity support,” which in turn has a positive effect on the objective (financial) performance of the firm. In contrast, the CSR dimension “commitment to the community” is positively linked to forms’ subjective performance C. Stock et al. 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research O’Boyle et al. (2010) Family involvement Financial outcomes – Quantitative 526 family firms S M USA The ethical focus of a (financial perfor - (cross-sectional) company mediates mance) the relationship between family involvement and financial results. The factors value con- gruence and partici- pative continuance have a positive effect on ethical focus, while ownership and control and profes- sionalism show a negative effect Singal (2014) Family ownership Financial perfor- Instrumental theory Quantitative 534 firms (11 year – USA Family firms have a and management mance panel) better financial and (combined) CSR performance than non-family firms, whereby the higher CSR per- formance in family firms is triggered by their better financial performance. Family firms continue to invest more in miti- gating concerns than in positive initiatives to build strengths in CSR performance. Family firms’ higher CSR inclination further has a posi- tive impact on their future financial performance Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… 1 3 Table 13 (continued) Authors (Year) Antecedents Outcomes Theory Method Sample Size Sample Firm Country of Key Findings Size Research Wu et al. (2014) Family ownership Costs of capital – Quantitative 482 firms (4 year – Taiwan Firms with CSR panel) awards have lower cost of capital. Family firms with CSR have lower cost of capital than do non-family firms with CSR Zientara (2017) SEW Family firm reputa- SEW Theoretical – – – Due to SEW orienta- tion tion, family firms use an instrumental and selective CSR approach rather than a holistic or normative one. This often leads to socially responsible behavior towards external stakehold- ers, but irresponsible behavior towards internal stakehold- ers. Family firms pick those CSR initiatives that serve their own interests, like improving the firm’s image and reputation S small, M medium, L large (listed) C. Stock et al. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt corporate life cycle. Business Strategy and the Environment, DEAL. 27(8), 1596–1608. Association of Business Schools. (2021). Academic journal guide. Chartered Association of Business Schools. Declarations Astrachan, J. H., Astrachan, C. B., Campopiano, G., & Baù, M. (2020). Values, spirituality and religion: Family business and the roots of Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare sustainable ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), that are relevant to the content of this article. 637–645. Ballantyne, J. C., & Loeser, J. D. (2021). Empire of pain: The Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- secret history of the Sackler dynasty. Anesthesiology, 135(6), bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 1166–1167. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Bammens, Y., & Hünermund, P. (2020). Nonfinancial considerations as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, in eco-innovation decisions: The role of family ownership and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes reputation concerns. Journal of Product Innovation Manage- were made. The images or other third party material in this article are ment, 37(5), 431–453. included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Baù, M., Block, J., Discua Cruz, A., & Naldi, L. (2021). Bridging otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in locality and internationalization–A research agenda on the the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not sustainable development of family firms. Entrepreneurship & permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Regional Development, 33(7–8), 477–492. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Bendell, B. L. (2022). Environmental investment decisions of fam- copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . ily firms—An analysis of competitor and government influence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 1–14. Bennedsen, M., Tsoutsoura, M., & Wolfenzon, D. (2019). Drivers of effort: Evidence from employee absenteeism. Journal of Finan- References cial Economics, 133(3), 658–684. Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family busi- Abeysekera, A. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2020). Corporate social respon- nesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. sibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A family firm Futures, 75, 54–65. perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101370. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Shore, T. H. (1996). Ethics in family and (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to non-family owned firms: An exploratory study. Family Business institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Review, 9(2), 157–170. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113. Adomako, S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Danso, A., Konadu, R., & Bhatnagar, N., Sharma, P., & Ramachandran, K. (2020). Spirituality Owusu-Agyei, S. (2019). Environmental sustainability orienta- and corporate philanthropy in Indian family firms: An explora- tion and performance of family and nonfamily firms. Business tory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 715–728. Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1250–1259. Bingham, J. B., Dyer, W. G., Smith, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A Agostino, M., & Ruberto, S. (2021). Environment-friendly practices: stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social Family versus non-family firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 329, 129689. 565–585. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about Biscotti, A. M., D’Amico, E., & Monge, F. (2018). Do environmental corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. management systems affect the knowledge management pro- Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. cess? The impact on the learning evolution and the relevance Ahmad, S., Siddiqui, K. A., & AboAlsamh, H. M. (2020). Family of organisational context. Journal of Knowledge Management, SMEs’ survival: The role of owner family and corporate social 22(3), 603–620. responsibility. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Devel- Biswas, P., Roberts, H., & Whiting, R. (2019). The impact of family opment, 27(2), 281–297. vs non-family governance contingencies on CSR reporting in Amann, B., Jaussaud, J., & Martinez, I. (2012). Corporate social Bangladesh. Management Decision, 57(10), 2758–2781. responsibility in Japan: Family and non-family business differ - Block, J. (2010). Family management, family ownership, and down- ences and determinants. Asian Business & Management, 11(3), sizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Family Business Review, 329–345. 23(2), 109–130. Amidjaya, P. G., & Widagdo, A. K. (2020). Sustainability reporting Block, J., & Wagner, M. (2014a). Ownership versus management in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, owner- effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large fam- ship structure and digital banking matter? Journal of Applied ily and founder firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(4), Accounting Research, 21(2), 231–247. 339–346. Antheaume, N., Robic, P., & Barbelivien, D. (2013). French family Block, J., & Wagner, M. (2014b). The effect of family ownership on business and longevity: Have they been conducting sustainable different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence development policies before it became a fashion? Business His- from large US firms. Business Strategy & the Environment, tory, 55(6), 942–962. 23(7), 475–492. Aragón-Amonarriz, C., Arredondo, A. M., & Iturrioz-Landart, C. Blodgett, M. S., Dumas, C., & Zanzi, A. (2011). Emerging trends in (2019). How can responsible family ownership be sustained global ethics: A comparative study of US and international fam- across generations? A family social capital approach. Journal of ily business values. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 29–38. Business Ethics, 159(1), 161–185. Cabeza-García, L., Sacristán-Navarro, M., & Gómez-Ansón, S. (2017). Arena, C., & Michelon, G. (2018). A matter of control or identity? Family involvement and corporate social responsibility disclo- Family firms’ environmental reporting decisions along the sure. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(2), 109–122. 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. A., & Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entre- literature review and guidance for future research. International preneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1295–1316. Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 317–355. Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I. Campopiano, G., & De Massis, A. (2015). Corporate social respon- M. (2015). The role of independent directors at family firms in sibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures. Interna- firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 511–534. tional Business Review, 24(5), 890–901. Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Chirico, F. (2014). Firm philan- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., García-Sánchez, I.-M., thropy in small-and medium-sized family firms: The effects of & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2017). The mediating effect of ethical family involvement in ownership and management. Family Busi- codes on the link between family firms and their social perfor - ness Review, 27(3), 244–258. mance. Innovation and Sustainability, 50(6), 756–765. Campopiano, G., Rinaldi, F. R., Sciascia, S., & De Massis, A. (2019). Cui, V., Ding, S., Liu, M., & Wu, Z. (2018). Revisiting the effect of Family and non-family women on the board of directors: Effects family involvement on corporate social responsibility: A behav- on corporate citizenship behavior in family-controlled fashion ioral agency perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 41–51. 291–309. Chadwick, I. C., & Dawson, A. (2018). Women leaders and firm per - Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: formance in family businesses: An examination of financial and An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility nonfinancial outcomes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13. 9(4), 238–249. Dal Maso, L., Basco, R., Bassetti, T., & Lattanzi, N. (2020). Family Chen, J., & Liu, L. (2022). Family firms, national culture and corporate ownership and environmental performance: The mediation effect social performance: A meta-analysis. Cross Cultural & Strategic of human resource practices. Business Strategy and the Environ- Management, 29(2), 379–402. ment, 29(3), 1548–1562. Chen, Y. L., & Cheng, H. Y. (2020). Public family businesses and cor- Danes, S. M., & Brewton, K. E. (2012). Follow the capital: Benefits porate social responsibility assurance: The role of mimetic pres- of tracking family capital across family and business systems. In sures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 39(3), 106734. A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding family busi- Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the nesses (pp. 227–250). Springer. antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation Danes, S. M., Lee, J., Stafford, K., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2008). The effects of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), of ethnicity, families and culture on entrepreneurial experience: 1558–1585. An extension of sustainable family business theory. Journal of Choi, Y. K., Han, S. H., & Kwon, Y. (2019). CSR activities and internal Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(03), 229–268. capital markets: Evidence from Korean business groups. Pacific- Dangelico, R. M. (2017). What drives green product development and Basin Finance Journal, 55, 283–298. how do different antecedents affect market performance? A sur - Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2010). vey of Italian companies with eco-labels. Business Strategy and Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non- the Environment, 26(8), 1144–1161. economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Ashton, T., & Evangelopoulos, N. (2021). Practice, 36(2), 267–293. Family firm heterogeneity: A definition, common themes, schol- Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2005). Sources and conse- arly progress, and directions forward. Family Business Review, quences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneur- 34(3), 296–322. ship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237–247. Dawson, A., Ginesti, G., & Sciascia, S. (2020). Family-related ante- Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family cedents of business legality: An empirical investigation among business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Italian family owned SMEs. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 23(4), 19–39. 11(1), 100284. Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Green paper: Pro- Dayan, M., Ng, P. Y., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2019). Mindfulness, socioemo- moting a European framework for corporate social responsibil- tional wealth, and environmental strategy of family businesses. ity. Commission of the European Communities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(3), 466–481. Cordeiro, J. J., Galeazzo, A., Shaw, T. S., Veliyath, R., & Nandakumar, de Déniz, M. C. D., & Suárez, M. K. C. (2005). Corporate social M. K. (2018). Ownership inu fl ences on corporate social responsi - responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business bility in the Indian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Ethics, 56(1), 27–41. 35(4), 1107–1136. De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family Cordeiro, J. J., Profumo, G., & Tutore, I. (2020). Board gender diver- business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal sity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 15–29. role of family and dual-class majority ownership structures. Busi- Dekker, J., & Hasso, T. (2016). Environmental performance focus in ness Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1127–1144. private family firms: The role of social embeddedness. Journal Craig, J., & Dibrell, C. (2006). The natural environment, innovation, of Business Ethics, 136(2), 293–309. and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Delmas, M. A., & Gergaud, O. (2014). Sustainable certification for Review, 19(4), 275–288. future generations: The case of family business. Family Business Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2013). Corporate social Review, 27(3), 228–243. responsibility in a global context. In A. Crane, D. Matten, & L. Dick, M., Wagner, E., & Pernsteiner, H. (2021). Founder-controlled J. Spence (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and family firms, overconfidence, and corporate social responsibil - cases in a global context (pp. 3–26). SSRN. ity engagement: Evidence from survey data. Family Business Cruz, C., Justo, R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Garcés-Galdeano, L. Review, 34(1), 71–92. (2019). When do women make a better table? Examining the Dimov, D. (2017). Towards a qualitative understanding of human capi- influence of women directors on family firm’s corporate social tal in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entre- performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), preneurial Behavior & Research, 23(2), 210–227. 282–301. Discua Cruz, A. (2020). There is no need to shout to be heard! The paradoxical nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) 1 3 C. Stock et al. reporting in a Latin American family small and medium-sized to environmental hostility: Are family firms more stakeholder enterprise (SME). International Small Business Journal, 38(3), oriented? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 243–267. 1003–1018. Doluca, H., Wagner, M., & Block, J. (2018). Sustainability and envi- Ge, J., & Micelotta, E. (2019). When does the family matter? Institu- ronmental behaviour in family firms: A longitudinal analysis tional pressures and corporate philanthropy in China. Organiza- of environment-related activities, innovation and performance. tion Studies, 40(6), 833–857. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 152–172. Giner, B., & Ruiz, A. (2020). Family entrepreneurial orientation as Dou, J., Su, E., & Wang, S. (2019). When does family ownership pro- a driver of longevity in family firms: a historic analysis of the mote proactive environmental strategy? The role of the firm’s ennobled Trenor family and Trenor y Cía. Business History, long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 81–95. 2020, 1–32. Du, X. (2015). Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental mis- Global Family Business Index. (2021). Global family business index. conduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. University of St. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 341–361. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. Du, X., Pei, H., Du, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2016). Media coverage, family J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish China. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(2), 224–253. olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. Du, X., Zeng, Q., & Chang, Y. (2018). To be philanthropic when being Graafland, J. (2020). Family business ownership and cleaner produc- international: Evidence from Chinese family firms. Journal of tion: Moderation by company size and family management. Jour- Management & Organization, 24(3), 424–449. nal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120120. Dyer, W. G., Jr., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social Graafland, J., van de Ven, B., & Stoffele, N. (2003). Strategies and responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entre- instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses preneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802. in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 45–60. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based frame- Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. work for assessing the strategic advantages of family r fi ms. Fam- El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. Y. (2016). ily Business Review, 12(1), 1–25. Family control and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations Banking & Finance, 73, 131–146. in studying family businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), El-Kassar, A. N., ElGammal, W., & Fahed-Sreih, J. (2018). Engage- 257–276. ment of family members, corporate governance and social Hernes, T., & Bakken, T. (2003). Implications of self-reference: Niklas responsibility in family-owned enterprises. Journal of Organi- Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization zational Change Management, 31(1), 215–229. Studies, 24(9), 1511–1535. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The tri- Hsueh, J. W. J. (2018). Governance structure and the credibility gap: ple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Experimental evidence on family businesses’ sustainability Management, 8(1), 37–51. reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 547–568. Ertuna, B., Karatas-Ozkan, M., & Yamak, S. (2019). Diffusion of sus - Huang, Y. C., Ding, H. B., & Kao, M. R. (2009). Salient stakeholder tainability and CSR discourse in hospitality industry: Dynamics voices: Family business and green innovation adoption. Journal of local context. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi- of Management & Organization, 15(3), 309–326. tality Management, 31(6), 2564–2581. International Family Enterprise Research Academy (2003). Family Faller, C. M., & Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018). Does equity own- businesses dominate: International Family Enterprise Research ership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature Academy (IFERA). Family Business Review, 16(4), 235–240. review of theories and recent empirical findings. Journal of Iyer, V., & Lulseged, A. (2013). Does family status impact US firms’ Business Ethics, 150(1), 15–40. sustainability reporting? Sustainability Accounting, Management Fehre, K., & Weber, F. (2019). Why some are more equal: Family firm and Policy Journal, 4(2), 163–189. heterogeneity and the effect on management’s attention to CSR. Izzo, M. F., & Ciaburri, M. (2018). Why do they do that? Motives and Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 321–334. dimensions of family firms’ CSR engagement. Social Responsi- Fitzgerald, M. A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H. L., & Danes, S. M. bility Journal., 14, 633. (2010). Socially responsible processes of small family business Jang, J., & Danes, S. M. (2013). Role interference in family businesses. owners: Exploratory evidence from the National Family Business Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 367–390. Survey. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(4), 524–551. Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2017). Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & Weismeier-Sam- Introducing the family: A review of family science with implica- mer, D. (2017). Capturing the familiness of family businesses: tions for management research. Academy of Management Annals, Development of the family influence familiness scale (FIFS). 11(1), 309–341. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 709–742. Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate social responsi- room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family bility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Sym- business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 111–118. phonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 7–15. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Manage- Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De rial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cam- Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. bridge University Press. Kallmuenzer, A., Nikolakis, W., Peters, M., & Zanon, J. (2018). Trade- Fritz, M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A., & Harms, R. (2021). Sustainabil- offs between dimensions of sustainability: Exploratory evidence ity management in supply chains: the role of familiness. Techno- from family firms in rural tourism regions. Journal of Sustain- logical Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121078. able Tourism, 26(7), 1204–1221. Gallo, M. A. (2004). The family business and its social responsibilities. Kariyapperuma, N., & Collins, E. (2021). Family logics and environ- Family Business Review, 17(2), 135–148. mental sustainability: A study of the New Zealand wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3626–3650. García-Sánchez, I. M., Martín-Moreno, J., Khan, S. A., & Hussain, N. (2021). Socio-emotional wealth and corporate responses 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of Liu, M., Shi, Y., Wilson, C., & Wu, Z. (2017). Does family involve- the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of ment explain why corporate social responsibility affects earnings Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280. management? Journal of Business Research, 75, 8–16. Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2014a). A rose by any other name: Are López-González, E., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Meca, E. (2019). family firms named after their founding families rewarded more Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A contingency for their new product introductions? Journal of Business Ethics, approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1044–1064. 124(1), 81–99. Lorandini, C. (2015). Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2014b). Beating the recession blues: The Salvadori firm of Trento, 1660s–1880s. Business History, Exploring the link between family ownership, strategic marketing 57(7), 1005–1019. behavior and firm performance during recessions. International Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2021). Experimental studies in family business Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 78–93. research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(1), 100361. Kim, A., & Lee, Y. (2018). Family firms and corporate social per - Lumpkin, G. T., & Brigham, K. H. (2011). Long–term orientation and formance: Evidence from Korean firms. Asia Pacific Business intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory Review, 24(5), 693–713. and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169. Kim, J., Fairclough, S., & Dibrell, C. (2017). Attention, action, and Ma, B., Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., Lai, Y., Zhou, Z., & Bashir, M. F. (2022). greenwash in family-influenced firms? Evidence from pollut- Can controlling family involvement promote firms to fulfill envi- ing industries. Organization & Environment, 30(4), 304–323. ronmental responsibilities?—Evidence from China. Managerial Kim, K., Haider, Z. A., Wu, Z., & Dou, J. (2020). Corporate social and Decision Economics, 43(2), 569–592. performance of family firms: A place-based perspective in the Madden, L., McMillan, A., & Harris, O. (2020). Drivers of selectivity context of layoffs. Journal of Business Ethics. https:// doi. org/ in family firms: Understanding the impact of age and ownership 10. 1007/ s10551- 019- 04152-5 on CSR. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 11(2), 100335. Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneuri- Maggioni, D., & Santangelo, G. D. (2017). Local environmental non- ally active in business: Exploring the values and family char- profit organizations and the green investment strategies of family acteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family Business Review, firms. Ecological Economics, 138, 126–138. 15(3), 175–187. Mariani, M. M., Al-Sultan, K., & De Massis, A. (2021). Corporate Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment review. Journal of Small Business Management. to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- Marques, P., Presas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The heterogeneity of tice, 37(6), 1263–1288. family firms in CSR engagement: The role of values. Family Kumar, M. S., & Vaz, M. M. (2017). Capacity building through Business Review, 27(3), 206–227. social entrepreneurship & CSR initiatives. International Jour- Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. nal of Management and Research, 6(7), 109–118. (2017). The strength of the board on sustainability assurance Kuttner, M., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). Corporate social decisions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Develop- responsibility in family firms-Status quo and future directions. ment, 24(4), 863–886. International Journal of Business Strategy, 18(1), 238. Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., Garcia-Sanchez, I.-M., & Kuttner, M., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Mitter, C. (2021). Cor- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2018). Corporate social responsibility porate social responsibility in Austrian family firms: Soci- disclosure and information asymmetry: The role of family owner- oemotional wealth and stewardship insights from a qualitative ship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(4), 885–916. approach. Journal of Family Business Management, 11(2), Matheson J (2021). Sustainability report 2021. Retrieved December 2, 238–253. 2022, from https:// susta inabi lity. jardi nes. com/ 2021/ index. html La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A con- ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), ceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate 471–517. social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), Labelle, R., Hafsi, T., Francoeur, C., & Ben Amar, W. (2018). Family 404–424. firms’ corporate social performance: A calculated quest for soci- Maung, M., Miller, D., Tang, Z., & Xu, X. (2020). Value-enhancing oemotional wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 511–525. social responsibility: Market reaction to donations by family vs Laguir, I., Laguir, L., & Elbaz, J. (2016). Are family small- and non-family firms with religious CEOs. Journal of Business Eth- medium-sized enterprises more socially responsible than non- ics, 163(4), 745–758. family small- and medium-sized enterprises? Corporate Social McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Ibrahim, B. (2012). All in the family? Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 23(6), 386–398. performance and corporate governance in the family firm. Jour - Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. (2018). The influence of family firms and nal of Business Research, 65(11), 1643–1650. institutional owners on corporate social responsibility perfor- Meier, O., & Schier, G. (2021). CSR and family CEO: The moderating mance. Business & Society, 57(7), 1374–1406. role of CEO’s age. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(3), 595–612. Lamb, N. H., Butler, F. C., & Roundy, P. (2017). Family firms and Memili, E., Fang, H., Chrisman, J. J., & De Massis, A. (2015). The corporate social responsibility: Exploring “concerns.” Journal impact of small-and medium-sized family firms on economic of Strategy and Management, 10(4), 469–487. growth. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 771–785. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2016). Family firms and practices of Memili, E., Patel, P. C., Koç, B., & Yazıcıoğlu, İ. (2020). The interplay sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family Business between socioemotional wealth and family firm psychological Strategy, 7(1), 26–33. capital in influencing firm performance in hospitality and tour - Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2022). Family businesses under ism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100651. COVID-19: Inspiring models–Sometimes. Journal of Family Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2007). Kicking the habit: Broad- Business Strategy, 13(2), 100452. ening our horizons by studying family businesses. Journal of Lin, C. M., Chen, C. C. S., Yang, S. Y., & Wang, W. R. (2020). The Management Inquiry, 16(1), 27–30. effects of corporate governance on credit ratings: The role of corporate social responsibility. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56(5), 1093–1112. 1 3 C. Stock et al. Miroshnychenko, I., De Massis, A., Barontini, R., & Testa, F. (2022). Sánchez-Medina, P. S., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2017). Environmental Family firms and environmental performance: A meta-analytic pressure and quality practices in artisanal family businesses: The review. Family Business Review, 35(1), 68–90. mediator role of environmental values. Journal of Cleaner Pro- Muttakin, M. B., & Khan, A. (2014). Determinants of corporate social duction, 143, 145–158. disclosure: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Advances in Schell, S., Wolff, S., & Moog, P. (2020). Contracts and communication Accounting, 30(1), 168–175. among family members: Business succession from a contractual Nadeem, M., Gyapong, E., & Ahmed, A. (2020). Board gender diver- view. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi. or g/10. sity and environmental, social, and economic value creation: 1080/ 00472 778. 2020. 18164 29 Does family ownership matter? Business Strategy and the Envi- Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school ronment, 29(3), 1268–1284. policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136. Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2008). Community social Seckin-Halac, D., Erdener-Acar, E., & Zengin-Karaibrahimoglu, Y. responsibility and its consequences for family business perfor- (2021). Ownership and corporate social responsibility: “The mance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 331–350. power of the female touch.” European Management Journal, O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Rutherford, M. W., & Pollack, J. M. (2010). Exam- 39(6), 695–709. ining the relation between ethical focus and financial perfor - Sekerci, N., Jaballah, J., van Essen, M., & Kammerlander, N. (2022). mance in family firms: An exploratory study. Family Business Investors’ reactions to CSR news in family versus nonfamily Review, 23(4), 310–326. firms: A study on signal (in) credibility. Entrepreneurship Theory Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Jung, R. (2019). Board characteristics and Practice, 46(1), 82–116. and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and realities: Fam- management matter? Journal of Business Research, 103, 23–33. ily businesses’ contribution to the US economy—A framework Palma, M., Lourenço, I. C., & Branco, M. C. (2022). Web-based sus- for assessing family business statistics. Family Business Review, tainability reporting by family companies: The role of the richest 9(2), 107–123. European families. Accounting Forum, 46(4), 344–368. Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business stud- Pan, Y., Weng, R., Xu, N., & Chan, K. C. (2018). The role of corporate ies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business philanthropy in family firm succession: A social outreach per - Review, 17(1), 1–36. spective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 88, 423–441. Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmen- Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Thompson, D. (2014). tal strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded companies 309–334. versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business Ethics, Singal, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in the hospitality 125(3), 481–496. and tourism industry: Do family control and financial condition Peake, W., Cooper, D., Fitzgerald, M., & Muske, G. (2017). Family matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, business participation in community social responsibility: The 81–89. moderating effect of gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), Soleimanof, S., Rutherford, M. W., & Webb, J. W. (2018). The inter- 325–343. section of family firms and institutional contexts: A review Preslmayer, C., Kuttner, M., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2018). and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 31(1), Uncovering the research field of corporate social responsibility 32–53. in family firms: A citation analysis. Journal of Family Business Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Dane, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research Management, 8(2), 169–195. model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, Pütz, L., Schell, S., & Werner, A. (2022). Openness to knowledge: does 12(3), 197–208. corporate social responsibility mediate the relationship between Stock, C., Hossinger, S., Werner, A., Schell, S., & Soluk, J. (2022). familiness and absorptive capacity? Small Business Economics. Corporate social responsibility as a driver of digital innovation in https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 022- 00671-0 SMEs: The mediation effect of absorptive capacity. International Rees, W., & Rodionova, T. (2015). The influence of family ownership Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 14(4–5), 571–601. on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of Sundarasen, S. D., Je-Yen, T., & Rajangam, N. (2016). Board composi- publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An Interna- tion and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. tional Review, 23(3), 184–202. Corporate Governance: THe International Journal of Effective Richards, M., Zellweger, T., & Gond, J. P. (2017). Maintaining moral Board Performance, 16(1), 35–53. legitimacy through worlds and words: An explanation of firms’ Sutton, F. X. (1987). The Ford foundation: The early years. Philan- investment in sustainability certification. Journal of Management thropy, Patronage, Politics, 116, 41–91. Studies, 54(5), 676–710. Swab, R. G., Sherlock, C., Markin, E., & Dibrell, C. (2020). “SEW” Rousseau, M. B., Kellermanns, F., Zellweger, T., & Beck, T. E. (2018). what do we know and where do we go? A review of socioemo- Relationship conflict, family name congruence, and socioemo- tional wealth and a way forward. Family Business Review, 33(4), tional wealth in family firms. Family Business Review, 31(4), 424–445. 397–416. Terlaak, A., Kim, S., & Roh, T. (2018). Not good, not bad: The effect of Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2022). Thirty family control on environmental performance disclosure by busi- years of research in family business journals: Status quo and ness group firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(4), 977–996. future directions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(3), Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodol- 100422. ogy for developing evidence-informed management knowledge Sahasranamam, S., Arya, B., & Sud, M. (2020). Ownership structure by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Asia 14(3), 207–222. Pacific Journal of Management, 37(4), 1165–1192. Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale Samara, G., & Arenas, D. (2017). Practicing fairness in the family busi- development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. ness workplace. Business Horizons, 60(5), 647–655. Uhlaner, L., Berent-Braun, M., Jeurissen, R., & de Wit, G. (2012). Samara, G., Jamali, D., Sierra, V., & Parada, M. J. (2018). Who are Beyond size: Predicting engagement in environmental man- agement practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, the best performers? The environmental social performance of 109(4), 411–429. family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 33–43. 1 3 Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research… Uhlaner, L. M., van Goor-Balk, H. A., & Masurel, E. (2004). Family of family vs nonfamily firms. Journal of Business Research, 124, business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch 581–592. firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Yu, A., Ding, H. B., & Chuang, H. M. (2015). Corporate social respon- 11(2), 186–194. sibility performance in family and non-family firms: The per - Van Marrewijk, M. (2013). Concepts and definitions of CSR and cor - spective of socio-emotional wealth. Asian Business & Manage- porate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal ment, 14(5), 383–412. of Business Ethics, 44(1–2), 95–105. Yu, B., Zeng, S., Chen, H., Meng, X., & Tam, C. (2021). Doing more Wagner, M. (2010). Corporate social performance and innovation with and doing better are two different entities: Different patterns of high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business family control and environmental performance. Business Strategy Ethics, 94(4), 581–594. and the Environment, 30(1), 1–20. Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges Zamir, F., & Saeed, A. (2020). Location matters: Impact of geographi- and best practices. Family Business Review, 10(4), 323–337. cal proximity to financial centers on corporate social respon- Weismeier-Sammer, D., Frank, H., & von Schlippe, A. (2013). Untan- sibility (CSR) disclosure in emerging economies. Asia Pacific gling ‘familiness’ A literature review and directions for future Journal of Management, 37(1), 263–295. research. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Zheng, W., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, X. C., & Lin, S. J. (2017). Why do Innovation, 14(3), 165–177. employees have counterproductive work behavior? The role of Welford, R. (2007). Corporate governance and corporate social respon- founder’s Machiavellianism and the corporate culture in China. sibility: Issues for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Management Decision, 55(3), 563–578. Environmental Management, 14(1), 42–51. Zientara, P. (2017). Socioemotional wealth and corporate social Wiklund, J. (2006). Commentary: “Family firms and social responsibil- responsibility: A critical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, ity: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500.” Entrepreneurship 144(1), 185–199. Theory and Practice, 30(6), 803–808. Wu, S., Lin, F., & Wu, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to cost of capital: An empirical study of the Taiwan stock market. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 50, 107–120. Yanez-Araque, B., Hernández, J. P. S. I., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., & Jimenez-Estevez, P. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises: Multigroup analysis 1 3

Journal

Journal of Business Ethics – Springer Journals

Published: Feb 1, 2024

Keywords: Systematic Literature Review; Family Firms; Corporate Social Responsibility; Sustainable Family Business Theory; Antecedents; Outcomes

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

Corporate Social Responsibility in Family Firms: Status and Future Directions of a Research Field

References (212)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies