Propiedad familiar, control y efecto generación y RSC

  1. Laura Cabeza García
  2. María Sacristán Navarro
  3. Silvia Gómez Ansón
Revista:
European Journal of Family Business

ISSN: 2444-877X

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 4

Número: 1

Páginas: 9-20

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.24310/EJFBEJFB.V4I1.5036 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: European Journal of Family Business

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar el papel de la propiedad familiar en la política de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa (RSC) medida ésta a partir de varios indicadores de transparencia informativa sobre las acciones sociales y medioambientales real izadas por las empresas. Utilizando una muestra de empresas no financieras españolas en el periodo 2004 - 2010 e identificando el último gran propietario de la compañía a partir de las cadenas de propiedad, encontramos que el compromiso en RSC es menor en em presas con propiedad familiar, si bien, los resultados no indican que la presencia del fundador de la compañía afecte significativamente a las políticas informativas de la empresa. Por otro lado, los resultados relativos al efecto del control ejercido por las familias sobre la transparencia en RSC son mixtos, sugiriendo que el control familiar influye en la política de dar información o no sobre RSC, pero no en la amplitud de la información suministrada al mercado.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., y Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5), 507 - 525.
  • Aguinis, H. , y Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 , 932 - 968.
  • Anderson, R.C., Mansi, S.A., y Reeb, D.M. (2003). Founding family ownership and the agenc y cost of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 68, 263 - 285.
  • Anderson, R.C., y Reeb, D.M. (2003). Founding - family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58 (3), 1301 - 1328.
  • Archel, P. (2003). La divulgación de la i nformación social y medioambiental de la gran empresa española en el período 1994 – 1998: Situación actual y perspectivas. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 117, 571 - 601.
  • Arora, P. , y Dharwadkar, R., 2011. Corporate governance and corporate so cial responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19 (2), 136 - 152.
  • Bachiller, P., Giorgino, M.C., y Paternostro, S. (2013). Analysis of social performance and boa rd of directors in family firms: E vidence from quoted Italian companies. En Smyrnios, K., Panikkos, P., y Goel, S. (Eds.), “2nd. Handbook of Research on family firms”, capítulo 8, (pp. 82 - 102). UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.
  • Barnea, A., y Rubin, A. (2010). C orporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (1), 71 - 86.
  • Bear, S., Rhaman, N., y Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputatio n. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (2), 207 - 221.
  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez - Mejía, L.R., y Larraza - Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family - controlled firms pollute less?” Administrative Scienc e Quarterly, 55, 82 - 113.
  • Blair, M. (1995). Ownership and control: R ethinking g overnance for the twenty - first c entury. Washington DC: The Brooking Institution.
  • Brammer, S., y Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 120 - 136.
  • Bushee, B.J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73 (3), 305 - 333.
  • Campbell, S.K. (1974). Flaws and f allacies in s tatistical t h inking. New Jersey: Prentice - Hall.
  • Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39 - 48.
  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S., y Lang, L. (2000). The separatio n of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81 - 112.
  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S., y Lang, L. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. The Journal of Finance, 57, 2741 - 2772.
  • Comisión Europea (2002). Green Book: P romoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. http://europa.eu.int/comm./employment_social/soc - dial/csr/greenpaper.htm.
  • Consolandi, C., Nascenzi, P., y Jaiswal - Dale A. (2008). Ownership conce ntration and corporate social performance: An empirical evidence for European firms. Corporate Responsibility Research Conference 2008, Belfast.
  • Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., y Siegel, D.S. (2008). The corporate social responsibility age nda. En: A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon y D.S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of CSR. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cuervo, A. (2004). El gobierno de la empresa. Un problema de conflicto de inte reses. En E. Bueno Campos (ed.), El gobierno de la empresa. En busca de la transparencia y la confianza (pp. 115 - 138). Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Dam, L. , y Scholtens, B. (2012). Does ownership matter for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20 (3), 233 - 252.
  • Deegan, C. , y Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26 (3), pp. 187 - 199.
  • Déniz, M.C. , y Cabrera, M.K. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and family bu siness in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 56 (1), 27 - 41.
  • Dikolli, S.S., Kulp, S.L., y Sedatole, K.L. (2009). Transient institutional ownership and CEO contracting. Accounting Review, 84 (3), 737 - 770.
  • Faccio, M. , y Lang, L. (2002). The ultimate ownership o f Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65, 365 - 395.
  • Fernández - Sánchez, J.L., Luna, L., y Baraibar, E. (2011). The relationship between corporate governance and corporate social behavior: A structural equation model analysis. Corpo rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 91 - 101.
  • Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic m anagement: A s takeholder a pproach. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.
  • Freund, J. , y Simon, G. (1994). Estadística e lemental. México: Prentice - Hall Hispanoamer icana.
  • Ghazali, N. (2007). Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. Corporate Governance, 7 (3), 251 - 266.
  • Godos - Díez, J.L., Fernández - Gago, R., y Cabeza - García, L. (2012). Propiedad y control en la puesta en práctica de la RSC. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 15 (1), 1 - 11.
  • Gómez - Mejía, L.R., Takács Haynes, K., Núñez - Nickel, M., Jacobson, KJL., y 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.
  • Graafland, J.J. (2002). Corporate social responsibility and family busin ess. Paper presented at the Research Forum of the Family Business Network 13th Annual Conference. Helsinki, Finland.
  • Graves, S.B. , y Waddock, S.A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4), 1034 - 10 46.
  • Griffin, J.J. , y Mahon, J.F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty - five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36, 5 - 31.
  • Habbershon, T., Williams, M., y Macmillan, IC. (2003). A unifi ed systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451 - 465.
  • Haniffa, R.M. , y Cooke, T.E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391 - 430.
  • Harjoto, M.A. , y Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100 (1), 45 - 67.
  • Hoopes, D.G. , y Miller, D. (2006). Ownership preferences, competitive heterogeneity, and family - controlled businesses. Family Business Review, 19 (2 ), 89 - 101.
  • Johnson, RA. , y Greening, D.W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5), 564 - 576.
  • Johnson, S., La Porta, R., López de Silanes, F. , y Shlei fer, A. (2000).Tunneling. American Economic Review, 90 (2), 22 - 27.
  • Jo, H. , y Harjoto, M.A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 351 - 383.
  • Kuo, L., Yeh, CH., y Yu, H. (2012). Disclosure of corporate social responsibility and environmental management: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 273 - 287.
  • La Porta, R., Lopez - de - Silanes, F., y Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownersh ip around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54, 471 - 517.
  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., y Johnston, W. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (2), 303 - 323.
  • López - Iturriaga, F., y López - de - Foronda, O. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and reference shareholders: An analysis of European multinational firms. Transnational Corporations Review, 3 (3), 1 - 11.
  • Mahapatra, S. (1984). Investor reaction to a corporate social accounting. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 11, 29 - 40.
  • McGuire, J., Dow, S., y Ibrahim, B. (2012). All in the family? Social performance and corporate governance in the family firm. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1643 - 1650.
  • Mcvey, H. , y Draho, J. (2005). U.S. family - run companies - They may be better than you think. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 17 (4), 134 - 143.
  • Miller, D. , y Le Breton - Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabiliti es. Family Business Review, 19, 73 - 87.
  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., y Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of whom and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853 - 886.
  • Monks, R. , y Minow, N. (1995). Corporate g overnance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  • Moneva, J.M. , y Llena, F. (2000). Environmental disclosures in the annual reports of large companies in Spain. European Accounting Review, 9 (1), 7 - 29.
  • Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 299 - 315.
  • Ndemanga, DA. , y Koffi, ET. (2009). Ownership structure, industry sector and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices: - The case of Swedish listed companies. Master of Science in Accounting, Master Degree Project No. 2009:31.
  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., y Rynes , S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta - analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403 - 441.
  • Ortiz de Mandojana, N., Aragón, A., y Delgado, J. (2011). La relación entre la propiedad institucional y de los directivos y el desempeño medioam biental. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de Empresa, 14, 222 - 230.
  • Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35, 1518 - 1541.
  • Porter, M.E. (1992). Capital c hoices : Changing the w ay America Invests in Industry. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 5 (2), 4 - 16.
  • Prado - Lorenzo, J.M., Gallego - Á lvarez, I. , y Gar cí a - S á nchez, I.M. (2009). “Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: The ownership structure effect”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16 (2), 94 - 107.
  • Sharma, P. (2008). Commentary, familiness: Capital stocks and flows between family and business. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32, 971 - 977.
  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J., y Chua, J.H. (1997). Strategic management of the family business: Past research and future challenges. Family Business Review, 10, 1 - 35.
  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J., y Gersick, K.E. (2012). 25 years of Family Business Review: Reflections on the past and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25 (5), 5 - 15.
  • Simpson, W.G. , y Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 97 - 109.
  • Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., y Dino, R.N. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 473 - 450.
  • Testera, A. , y Cabeza, L. (2013). Análisis de los factores determinantes de la transparencia en RSC en las e mpresas españolas cotizadas. Intangible Capital, 9 (1), 225 - 261.
  • Yong, W., Kyun, Y., y Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283 - 297.
  • Wallace, R., Naser, K., y Mora, A. (1994). The relationship between the comprehensiveness of corporate annual reports and firm characteristics in Spain. Accounting and Business Research, 25 (97), 41 - 53.
  • Walls, J., Berrone, P., y Phan, P. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885 - 913.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet