Pascual Berrone

Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms Theoretical Dimensions, Assessment Approaches, and Agenda for Future Research

This article makes the case for the socioemotional wealth (SEW) approach as the potential dominant paradigm in the family business field. The authors argue that SEW is the most important differentiator of the family firm as a unique entity and, as such, helps explain why family firms behave distinctively. In doing so, the authors review the concept of SEW, its different dimensions, and its links with other theoretical approaches. The authors also address the issue of how to measure this construct and offer various alternatives for operationalizing it. Finally, they offer a set of topics that can be pursued in future studies using the SEW approach.

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

This paper compares the environmental performance of family and nonfamily public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions. We found that family-controlled public firms protect their socioemotional wealth by having a better environmental performance than their nonfamily counterparts, particularly at the local level, and that for the nonfamily firms, stock ownership by the chief executive officer (CEO) has a negative environmental impact. We also found that the positive effect of family ownership on environmental performance persists independently of whether the CEO is a family member or serves both as CEO and board chair.

The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms

A growing body of research shows that family firms are different from other organizations in significant ways. In this paper we review this literature by examining how family firms differ from nonfamily firms along five broad categories of managerial decisions. These categories encompass a set of key organizational choices concerning management processes, firm strategies, corporate governance, stakeholder relations and business venturing. We argue that socioemotional wealth or affective endowment of family owners explain many of these choices. We also examine some contingency factors (namely family stage, firm size, firm hazard, and the presence of nonfamily shareholders) that moderate the influence of socioemotional wealth preservation as a point of reference when making managerial decisions in family firms. Lastly, we explore the firm performance consequences of family ownership.

Socioemotional Wealth and Proactive Stakeholder Engagement: Why Family-Controlled Firms Care More about Their Stakeholders

While family business research has prominently recognized that family firms are motivated by nonfinancial factors, the literature has remained relatively silent about whether or not these firms are more likely than others to engage actively with their stakeholders, who often have nonpecuniary demands. This paper argues that family firms are more prone to adopt proactive stakeholder engagement (PSE) activities because by doing so they preserve and enhance their socioemotional wealth (SEW). We explore the impact of the different dimensions of SEW on PSE and identify distinctive logics that explain the adoption of such practices. Finally, we offer a set of topics for future studies.

Do the type and number of blockholders influence R&D investments? New evidence from Spain

Using data from 3,638 Spanish firms between 1996 and 2000, this article studies the relationship between the presence of large shareholders in the ownership structure of firms and R&D investment. Consistent with our theoretical contention, our results indicate that the impact of large shareholders on the R&D investment is (1) negative when blockholders are banks, (2) positive when blockholders are non-financial corporations and (3) null when blockholders are individuals. In addition, we find a systematic negative relationship between the number of blockholders and R&D investment. Finally, we extend our study by analysing the influence that the combined effect between blockholder type and R&D investment has on the firms economic performance. Results of this work provide relevant implications for policy makers and academic research.

Measuring environmental strategy: Construct development, reliability, and validity

Inconsistent results in prior work that link environmental strategy to competitive advantage may be due to the empirical difficulties of marrying the theoretical connection between a firm’s resource base and its environmental strategy. The authors contribute to the field by developing a measure that is congruent with the natural resource—based view, a dominant paradigm in this line of work. This article content analyses company reports and secondary data to develop a measure of environmental strategy grounded in the natural resource—based view. They identify six environmental capabilities that form components of a reliable, multidimensional construct of proactive environmental strategy. They also identify a measure of reactive compliance strategy. They verify reliability of their new measure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, establish convergent and discriminant validity via a multitrait, multimethod matrix and demonstrate superior predictive validity of their measure compared to two others commonly used in the literature. In the conclusion, they discuss implications for research and practice.

Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible

This paper conducts an empirical study as to whether family firms are more socially responsible than their nonfamily counterparts and explores the conditions in which this difference in social behavior occurs. We argue that family firms, given their socioemotional wealth bias, have a positive effect on social dimensions linked to external stakeholders, yet have a negative impact on internal social dimensions. Thus, family firms can be socially responsible and irresponsible at the same time. We also suggest that institutional and organizational conditions act as catalysts in the relationship between firm type and corporate social responsibility (CSR). General support for our thesis that family firms neglect internal social dimensions came from the study of a sample of 598 listed European firms over a period of 4 years. Moreover, while national standards and industry conditions influence the degree of CSR in nonfamily firms, these factors do not affect family firms. However, family firms’ social activities are more sensitive to declining organizational performance.

Executive compensation in North American high-technology firms: a contextual approach

After reviewing the literature surrounding the link between executive compensation and innovation activities of North American firms, we examine two gaps in the area. First, we analyze how contextual factors can affect CEO pay in high-technology companies. In particular, we study three contextual dimensions: political, economic, and social. Second, we consider the specific case of executive compensation in high-technology firms when family ties are present at the helm. Drawing on agency rationale and previous research, we develop a series of instrumental propositions intended to provide the theoretical basis for a future research agenda in the area.

The Open Kimono: Toward a General Framework for Open Data Initiatives in Cities

The article presents a framework for exploring the drivers, structure, and dynamics of open data initiatives in the city context. Drawing on a case study of the city of Barcelona complemented with other cases, it develops a stepwise framework that can serve as a practical guide for both urban and private leaders to implement open data strategies. Following this model can enable managers to minimize risk and effectively harness the power of open data.

Conflict Between Controlling Family Owners and Minority Shareholders: Much Ado About Nothing?

We examine the unique nature of conflict between controlling family owners and minority shareholders (principal–principal conflict) in publicly traded family controlled firms through examining shareholder proposals. Implicit in prior governance and family business research has been that nonfamily shareholders are likely to be in conflict with the dominant family owners. In general, we find that much of this fear may be unwarranted except under specific circumstances. Our findings elucidate sources of heterogeneity in family firm principal–principal conflict and add greater nuance to our understanding of this type of agency problem within family firms.