nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2014

A Rose by Any Other Name: Are Family Firms Named After Their Founding Families Rewarded More for Their New Product Introductions?

verfasst von: Saim Kashmiri, Vijay Mahajan

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The authors explore the relation between the way different family firms are named, and the shareholder value impact of these firms’ new product introductions. Using an event study of 1,294 product introduction announcements of 107 publicly listed U.S. family firms, the authors find that the presence of the founding family’s name as part of a family firm’s name acts as a valuable firm resource, increasing the abnormal stock returns surrounding the firm’s new product introductions. Superior returns to family-named firms’ new product introductions are partially mediated by these firms’ history of ethical product-related behavior: family-named firms, particularly those with corporate branding, and those wherein a founding family member holds the CEO or chairman position, are more likely to exhibit a history of avoiding such product-related controversies as product safety issues, and deceptive advertising. The authors highlight the managerial and theoretical contributions of this research.

Vorheriger Artikel The Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-experimental Study

Nächster Artikel Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

This definition has been used by several recent academic studies on family firms such as Anderson and Reeb (2003), Anderson et al. (2003), Villalonga and Amit (2006), Ali et al. (2007), and Kashmiri and Mahajan (2010).

Note that our FN versus NFN classification only applies to family firms. For example EMC, Gap, Molex, and Nike are classified as NFN firms because (1) These firms are family firms given that members of the founding Egan, Fisher, Krehbiels, and Knight families are directors, executive officers or blockholders of these firms respectively, and (2) even though these firms are family firms, they are not named after their founding families. We do not classify firms such as Disney, Procter & Gamble, and McDonald’s as FN firms because although they are named after their founding families, their founding families no longer own or manage them. Thus these firms are not family firms to begin with.

Papers using KLD have appeared in many peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, and Academy of Management Review (e.g., Bird et al. 2007; Bouquet and Deutsch 2008; Brower and Mahajan 2013; Kashmiri and Mahajan 2010; Turban and Greening 1996; Briscoe and Safford 2008; Hull and Rothenberg 2008; Neubaum and Zahra 2006, and Marquis et al. 2007).

Such events include dividend increases and decreases, earnings announcements, earnings forecasts by management, merger activity, stock offerings, stock repurchases, stock dividends, capital expenditure announcements, divestitures, exchange listing of common stock, convertible debt issuance, and change in CEO or in the top management team.

If a firm had more than one founder, we averaged the age of the founders.

The key independent variable family-name presence did not change for any firm over the 3 years preceding the introduction of a focal product. Similarly, corporate branding and family influence did not change for during the period of our observation. For other independent variables, as a robustness check, we used their values three years prior to the year the focal product was introduced. For e.g.., if a product was introduced in 2007, we used the values of the other independent variables such as globalization, diversification, etc., in the year 2004. We did not find any significant change in our overall results.

In these models, the values of the independent variables were measured for the year the new product was announced, since these were the most current values, investors were expected to take into account while reacting to firms’ new product announcements. As a robustness check, we measured these values for the year t − 1 i.e, 1 year prior to the focal product announcement, and found that our overall conclusions remained the same.

Event study methodology treats each event of a firm as independent, and calculates abnormal return of each event of a firm after taking into account the historical stock price of the firm at the time the event took place. Given this inherent assumption of independence of observations as part of the event study methodology, even though some firms had multiple events, we do not report standard errors clustered by firms in the models with abnormal return as the dependent variable (Tables 5, 6). Nevertheless, our main conclusions remain the same even if we analyze errors clustered by firms in those models.

In separate analysis based on the Carhart-4 factor model, we found that for the median market capitalization in our sample at the time of a new product announcement, having a firm name based on the founding family was associated with an additional increase in market capitalization of $19.02 million.

Agarwal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1995). The economic worth of celebrity endorsers: An event study analysis. Journal of Marketing, 59(July), 56–62.CrossRef

Ahmed, P., Gardella, J., & Nanda, S. (2002, Autumn). Wealth effect of drug withdrawals on firms and their competitors. Financial Management, 31, 21–41.CrossRef

Ali, A., Chen, T-Y., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2007). Corporate disclosures by family firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44(1), 238–286.

Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.CrossRef

Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and the agency cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 263–285.

Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the U.S. economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211–219.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRef

Barth, M. E., Clement, M., Foster, G., & Kasznik, R. (1998). Brand values and capital market valuation. Review of Accounting Studies, 3(1–2), 41–68.CrossRef

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Bayus, B. L., Jain, S., & Rao, A. G. (1997). Too little, too early: Introduction timing and new product performance in the personal digital assistant industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 50–63.CrossRef

Beehr, T. A., Drexler, J. A., Jr, & Faulkner, S. (1997). Working in small family businesses: empirical comparisons to non-family businesses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 297–312.CrossRef

Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momente, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 189–206.CrossRef

Blundell, R., Griffin, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529–554.CrossRef

Bouquet, C., & Deutsch, Y. (2008). The impact of corporate social performance on a firm’s multi-nationality. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 755–769.CrossRef

Boyd, E. D., Chandy, R., & Cunha, M. (2010, December). When do chief marketing officers impact firm value? A customer power explanation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1162–1176.CrossRef

Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. (2008). The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 460–491.CrossRef

Brower, J., & Mahajan, V. (2013). Driven to be good: A stakeholder perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming.

Brown, S. J., & Warner, J. B. (1985). Using daily stock returns: The case of event studies. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1), 3–31.CrossRef

Business Week. (2003, November, 10). Defining family. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2003/0345_familyfirms.pdf.

Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.

Chaney, P. K., Devinney, T. M., & Winer, R. S. (1991). The impact of new product introductions on the market value of the firm. Journal of Business, 64(4), 573–610.CrossRef

Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1993). Advertising, R&D expenditures and the market value of the firm. Financial Management, 22(4), 128–140.CrossRef

Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 145–165.CrossRef

Cierpicki, S., Malcolm, W., & Sharp, B. (2000). Managers’ knowledge of marketing principles: The case of new product development. Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science, 5(3), 771–790.

Davidson, W. N., I. I. I., & Worrell, D. (1992). Research notes and communications: The effect of product recall announcements on shareholder wealth. Strategic Management Journal, 13(6), 467–474.CrossRef

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.CrossRef

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.CrossRef

Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1992). The entrepreneurial experience: Confronting career dilemmas of the start-up executive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65, 365–395.CrossRef

Gielens, K., van De Gucht, L. M., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2008, October). Dancing with a giant: The effect of Wal-Mart’s Entry into the United Kingdom on stock prices of European retailers. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 519–534.CrossRef

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Nuñez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, I. (2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 81–95.CrossRef

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458.CrossRef

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

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRef

Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Horsky, D., & Swyngedouw, P. (1987). Does it pay to change your company’s name? A stock market perspective. Marketing Science, 6(4), 320–335.CrossRef

Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 781–789.CrossRef

Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.CrossRef

Kelm, K. M., Narayanan, V. K., & Pinches, G. E. (1995). Shareholder value creation during R&D and Commercialization stages. Academy of Management Journal, 38(June), 770–786.CrossRef

Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kerin, R. A., Rudelius, W., & Hartley, S. W. (2008). Marketing (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Lee, R. P., & Chen, Q. (2009). The immediate impact of new product introductions on stock price: The role of firm resources and size. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 97–107.CrossRef

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.CrossRef

Madden, T. J., Fehle, F., & Fournier, S. (2006). Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 224–235.CrossRef

Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRef

Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder, Lydenburg, Domini Ratings Data. Business & Society, 45, 20–46.CrossRef

Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 299–315.CrossRef

Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1), 108–131.CrossRef

Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance, and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 239–255.CrossRef

Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 321–357.CrossRef

Perrini, F., Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2007). CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 285–300.CrossRef

Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 126–141.CrossRef

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organization cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28.CrossRef

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.CrossRef

Sethuraman, R., & Tellis, G. J. (1991). An analysis of the tradeoff between advertising and pricing. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 160–174.CrossRef

Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287–296.CrossRef

Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2009). Do innovations really pay off? Total stock market returns to innovation. Marketing Science, 28(3), 442–456.CrossRef

Sorescu, A. (2012). Innovation and the market value of firms. In S. Ganesan & S. Bharadwaj (Eds.), The handbook of marketing and finance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sorescu, A., Chandy, R., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 82–101.CrossRef

Srinivasan, S., Pauwels, K., Silva-Risso, J. M., & Hanssens, D. M. (2009). Product innovations, advertising, and stock returns. Journal of Marketing, 73, 24–43.CrossRef

Stam, W. (2009). When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies? Research Policy, 38(8), 1288–1299.CrossRef

Swaminathan, V., & Moorman, C. (2009). Marketing alliances, firm networks, and firm value creation. Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–69.CrossRef

Szwajkowski, E., & Figlewicz, R. E. (1999). Evaluating corporate performance: A comparison of the Fortune reputation survey and the Socrates social rating database. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11, 137–154.

Tipton, M., Bharadwaj, S., & Robertson, D. (2009). Regulatory exposure of deceptive marketing and its impact on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 227–243.CrossRef

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.CrossRef

Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417.CrossRef

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRef

Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1987). Marketing hype: A new perspective for new product research and introduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 43–49.CrossRef

Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 363–381.CrossRef

Titel: A Rose by Any Other Name: Are Family Firms Named After Their Founding Families Rewarded More for Their New Product Introductions?
verfasst von: Saim Kashmiri
Vijay Mahajan
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1861-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Environmental Motivations: The Pathway to Complete Environmental Management

Is Publicity Always Better than Advertising? The Role of Brand Reputation in Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility

Does it Pay to Be Ethical? Examining the Relationship Between Organisations’ Ethical Culture and Innovativeness

Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation

The Corporate Ethical Virtues Scale: Factorial Invariance Across Organizational Samples

The Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-experimental Study

Premium Partner