Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?

By Jason Chen. 2011

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/645d2fab03167336aab2b06edb7cc1090104ac09

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible? (2014, methodology): “At the same time, the SEW approach argues that since family owners are not faceless owners, they are far more exposed to losses of SEW, as a result of socially irresponsible behavior, than anonymous investors (Berrone et al., 2010).”
Doing More with Less: Innovation Input and Output in Family Firms (2016, unknown): “…firms to building up and maintaining long-term and trust-based relationships with external stakeholders such as suppliers (Berrone et al., 2012; Berrone et al., 2010), particularly those that are also family firms (Lester & Cannella, 2006), and loyal customers (Miller & Le Breton-Miller,…”
Exit Strategies in Family Firms: How Socioemotional Wealth Drives the Threshold of Performance (2013, unknown): “…increased SEW makes the family firm “more likely to bear the cost and uncertainty involved in pursuing certain actions, driven by a belief that the risks that such actions entail are counterbalanced by noneconomic benefits rather than potential financial gains” (Berrone et al., 2012, p. 261).”
Family Control and Family Firm Valuation by Family CEOs: The Importance of Intentions for Transgenerational Control (2012, background): “2010), and better environmental performance when that protects against risks to the family’s reputation (Berrone et al. 2010).”
The Adolescence of Family Firm Research (2012, unknown): “Consequently, they oppose organizational innovations that may put their accumulated wealth at risk (Morck, Strangeland, & Yeung, 2000), undermine their status in their communities (Berrone et al., 2010), or weaken their control over their firm’s activities (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2010).”
Are family ownership and control in large firms good, bad, or irrelevant? (2011, background): “…followed La Porta et al. (1998, 1999) to focus on the legal and regulatory development of institutions,7 we have not investigated informal aspects of institutions such as cultural and societal norms (Ahlstrom, Chen, & Yeh, 2010; Berrone et al., 2010; Bertrand & Schoar, 2006; Chakrabarty, 2009).”
Regional influences on the prevalence of family versus non-family start-ups (2014, unknown): “Familiarity with one's place of residence should be of specific importance for family start-ups as they are characterized by a higher degree of embeddedness than non-family start-ups (Berrone et al., 2010; Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2009).”
Financial Wealth, Socioemotional Wealth, and IPO Underpricing in Family Firms: A Two-stage Gamble Model (2017, methodology): “…et al., 2011), misuse the firm and its resources to provide social and emotional benefits to the family in the form of careers, image, and reputation (Berrone et al., 2010), or exploit their control and information advantages to pursue private gains and expropriate minority shareholders…”
How Firms Respond to Mandatory Information Disclosure (2012, unknown): “To the extent that these owners identify strongly with their firms, they may be more sensitive to institutional pressures such as those that follow from information disclosure (Berrone et al., 2010).”
Extending the Socioemotional Wealth Perspective: A Look at the Dark Side (2012, background): “Such a view contrasts with research that stresses the benefits of SEW, such as corporate responsibility (Berrone et al., 2010) and PSE (Berrone et al., 2012a).”