nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

26.09.2020 | Original Paper

CSR and Family CEO: The Moderating Role of CEO’s Age

verfasst von: Olivier Meier, Guillaume Schier

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study examines to what extent different types of CEOs in family firms influence external and internal stakeholder-related CSP as compared to CEOs in nonfamily firms. Linking family CEO and nonfamily CEO with CSR outcomes, we provide evidence that family CEOs are positively associated with both external and internal CSR, whereas nonfamily CEOs within family firms tend to be negatively associated with both external and internal CSR. We show that the incumbent CEO’s age moderates the above relationships, indicating the existence of shifting family priorities and suggesting a tendency toward CSR conformity as the salience of succession concerns increases.

Vorheriger Artikel The Effects of Spirituality and Religiosity on the Ethical Judgment in Organizations

Nächster Artikel Progressive and Rational CSR as Catalysts of New Product Introductions

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

We started to collect our data from 2008 and controlled the homogeneity of our CSR data. Furthermore, we focused on a four-year time period (2008–2011) in so far as our family categorization would remain stable during this time lapse (no change in family firm status).

We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the issues associated with pure versus quasi-moderator. More specifically, the interpretation of the direct effect within or outside the interaction models is a crucial issue, as well as the role of the moderator variable. If a quasi-moderator variable has a direct influence on the dependent variable, when a pure moderation is involved the moderator variable only interacts with the independent variables but does not have any direct influence on the dependent variable. When quasi-moderation is involved, direct effects can only be analyzed within the interaction models. Direct effects can indeed be properly performed only if the interaction term is statistically insignificant (Darrow and Kahl 1982; Carte and Russel 2003).

We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting these issues. Specifically, the origin of the nonfamily CEO may have an impact on the incumbent CEO's attitude toward CSR, as it may influence his or her relationship with family businesses and his or her anchoring in the family agenda (Chua et al. 2003; Minichilli et al. 2014). Similarly, it is worth noting that factors associated with the newly appointed CEO could affect our results, as his or her arrival could be associated with poor financial results, resulting in fewer discretionary resources to invest in CSR.

Aranda, C., Arellano, J., & Davila, A. (2017). Organizational learning in target setting. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1189–1211.

Barber, B. M., & Lyon, J. D. (1996). Detecting abnormal operating performance: The empirical power and specification of test statistics. Journal of Financial Economics, 41, 359–399.

Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.

Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1304–1320.

Barnett, T., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2006). Are we family and are we treated as family? Nonfamily employees’ perceptions of justice in the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 837–854.

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

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258–279.

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

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

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

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

Borokhovich, K. A., Parrino, R., & Trapani, T. (1996). Outside directors and CEO selection. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 337–355.

Boyd, B. K., & Solarino, A. M. (2016). Ownership of corporations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42, 1282–1314.

Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32, 864–888.

Burkart, M., Gromb, D., & Panunzi, F. (1997). Large shareholders, monitoring and the value of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 693–728.

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

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

Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Chirico, F. (2014). Firm philanthropy in small-and medium-sized family firms: The effects of family involvement in ownership and management. Family Business Review, 27, 244–258.

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 249–265.

Caroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

Carte, T. A., & Russell, C. J. (2003). In pursuit of moderation: Nine common errors and their solutions. MIS Quartely, 27, 479–501.

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

Cespa, G., & Cestone, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and managerial entrenchment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16, 741–771.

Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895–907.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 555–576.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Bergiel, E. B. (2009). An agency theoretic analysis of the professionalized family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 355–372.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and nonsuccession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers. Family Business Review, 16, 89–107.

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

Cruz, C. C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Becerra, M. (2010). Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 69–89.

Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garces-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 38, 1295–1316.

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

Darrow, A. L., & Kahl, D. R. (1982). A comparison of moderated regression techniques considering strength of effect. Journal of Management, 8, 35–47.

Ding, S., & Wu, Z. (2014). Family ownership and corporate misconduct in U.S. small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 183–195.

Dou, J., Zhang, Z., & Su, E. (2014). Does family involvement make firms donate more? Empirical evidence from Chinese private firms. Family Business Review, 27, 259–274.

Dyer, G. W., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility. Preliminary evidence from the S&P500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 785–802.

Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. (2014). The role of CEO personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 311–326.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

Gallo, M. A. (2004). The family business and its social responsibilities. Family Business Review, 17, 135–149.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1010–1037.

Girerd-Potin, I., Jimenez-Garcès, S., & Louvet, P. (2014). Which dimensions of social responsibility concern financial investors? Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 559–576.

Godos-Diez, J.-L., Fernandez-Gago, R., & Martinez-Campillo, A. (2011). How important are CEOs to CSR practices ? An analysis of the mediating effect of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 531–548.

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

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 226–237.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Neacsu, I., & Martin, G. (2019). CEO risk-taking and socioemotional wealth: The behavioral agency model, family control and CEO option wealth. Journal of Management, 45, 1713–1738.

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

Gompers, P. A. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 107–155.

Herrero, I. (2011). Agency costs, family ties and firm efficiency. Journal of Management, 37, 887–904.

Kabbach de Castro, L. R., Aguilera, R. V., & Crespi-Cladera, R. (2017). Family firms and compliance: Reconciling the conflicting predictions within the socioemotional wealth perspective. Family Business Review, 30, 137–159.

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

Labelle, R., Hafsi, T., Francoeur, C., & Ben Amar, W. (2018). Family firms’ corporate social performance: A calculated quest for socioemotional wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 511–525.

Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2013). Socioemotional wealth across the family firm life cycle. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1391–1397.

Litz, R. A., & Stewart, A. C. (2000). Charity begins at home: Family firms and patterns of community involvement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 131–148.

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

McClelland, P. L., Barker, V. L., III, & Oh, W.-Y. (2012). CEO career horizon and tenure: Future performance implications under different contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1387–1393.

Meier, O., & Schier, G. (2016). The early succession stage of a family firm: Exploring the role of agency rationales and stewardship attitudes. Family Business Review., 29, 256–277.

Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24, 197–216.

Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2014). Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 713–720.

Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Lester, R. H. (2013). Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science., 24, 189–209.

Minichilli, A., Nordqvist, M., Corbetta, G., & Amore, M. A. (2014). CEO succession mechanisms, organizational context, and performance: A socioemotional wealth perspective of family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies., 51, 1153–1179.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Chrisman, J., & Spence, L. J. (2011). Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 235–255.

Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27, 367–382.

Mullins, W., & Schoar, A. (2016). How do CEOs see their roles? Management philosophies and styles in family and non-family firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 119, 24–43.

Mustakallio, M., Autio, E., & Zahra, S. (2002). Relational and contractual governance in family firms: Effects on strategic decision making. Family Business Review, 15, 205–222.

Nason, R., Mazzeli, A., & Carney, M. (2018). The ties that unbind: Socialization and business-owning family reference point shift. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0289.CrossRef

Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Cheng, Z. (2016). When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: The moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 279–291.

Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283–297.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80, 57–68.

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

Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate social disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595–612.

Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M., & Dino, R. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 179–194.

Sharma, P., & Manikuti, S. (2005). Strategic divestments in family firms: Role of family structure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice., 29, 293–311.

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

Steier, L. (2001). Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital. Family Business Review, 14, 259–276.

Strike, V. M., Berrone, P., Sapp, S. G., & Congiu, L. (2015). A socioemotional wealth approach to CEO career horizons in family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 555–583.

Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35, 748–789.

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

Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2012). The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family–based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1183–1205.

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

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

Weng, D. H., & Zhiang, L. (2014). Beyond CEO tenure: The effect of CEO newness on strategic changes. Journal of Management, 40, 2009–2032.

Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 93–114.

Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50–84.

Wu, M. L. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8, 163–171.

Zattoni, A., Gnan, L., & Huse, M. (2015). Does family involvement influence firm performance? Exploring the mediating effects of board processes and tasks. Journal of Management, 41, 1214–1243.

Titel: CSR and Family CEO: The Moderating Role of CEO’s Age
verfasst von: Olivier Meier
Guillaume Schier
Publikationsdatum: 26.09.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04624-z

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 3/2021

Workplace Spirituality and Experienced Incivility at Work: Modeling Dark Triad as a Moderator

Social Media as a Form of Virtual Whistleblowing: Empirical Evidence for Elements of the Diamond Model

Progressive and Rational CSR as Catalysts of New Product Introductions

Integrating CSR with Business Strategy: A Tension Management Perspective

The Role of Mutual Funds in Corporate Social Responsibility

The Effects of Spirituality and Religiosity on the Ethical Judgment in Organizations

Premium Partner