Propiedad familiar, control y efecto generación y RSC

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

ISSN: 2444-877X

Year of publication: 2014

Volume: 4

Issue: 1

Pages: 9-20

Type: Article

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

More publications in: European Journal of Family Business

Abstract

This paper aims to analyse the effect of family ownership on firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) actions measured through several CSR disclosure variables. Using a sample of non - financial Spanish listed firms over the period 2004 - 2010 and after identifying the ultimate owner of the firms, the results show that family firms are les s committed with CSR disclosure policies although the presence of the families’ founders does not a ffect the firms’ CSR disclosure . The results also seem to reveal a negative effect of family control on the decision to disclose CSR practices, but not on th e amplitude of the information disclosed.

Bibliographic References

  • 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.
Data source: Dialnet