Search

Combining insights from the socioemotional wealth and institutional perspectives, we hypothesize that firms controlled by families offer greater job security to employees relative to non‐family firms, and this positive employment effect is amplified in riskier institutional environments around the world. Using an unbalanced panel of 3181 listed firms from 33 countries over a 10‐year period, we provide strong support for our hypotheses: family‐controlled firms on average are less likely to reduce their workforce compared to their non‐family counterparts, and this differential effect is magnified in weak institutional environments characterized by high political risk. These findings indicate that socioemotional wealth in family firms has a positive impact on employee welfare and that the use of a cross‐country design serves to bridge discrepancies or inconsistencies in single country studies that have been done in the past. From a practical perspective we conclude that the beneficial role of socioemotional wealth on employment relations is more evident when it is needed the most, namely under a dysfunctional institutional environment.

This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on corporate financial performance using a unique, cross-country, and longitudinal sample of 3350 listed firms worldwide. We find that the financial performance of family firms has been significantly higher than that of nonfamily firms during the COVID-19 pandemic, accounting for pre-pandemic business conditions. This effect is pertinent to firms with strong family involvement in management or in both management and ownership. We also identify the role of firm-, industry-, and country-level contingencies for family business financial performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study offers a novel understanding of the financial resilience across different types of family business and sets an agenda for future research on the drivers of resilience of family firms to adverse events. It also provides important and novel evidence for policymakers, particularly for firms with different ownership and management structures.

As sustainability is pivotal in combating the global warming and climate change crisis, we examine whether family firms differ from their nonfamily counterparts in the sustainability practices they adopt. Using a large sample of listed firms from 45 countries over an 8-year period, we show that family firms on average engage less in pollution prevention, green supply chain management, and green product development practices than nonfamily firms. Our results remain consistent after correcting for the endogeneity of family ownership, using alternative model specifications and variable definitions. Our findings hold important implications for both theory and practice.

This article critically reviews and meta-analyzes the environmental performance of family firms. Using a sample of 40,910 firms covering a 12-year period, we conclude that the average effect of family involvement on environmental performance is negative, albeit small. This negative effect is more pronounced in primary studies that measure environmental performance via the environmental operational practices adopted and in those that define family business using the family ownership and management criteria. Our findings suggest that from an agency perspective, and compared with nonfamily firms, the negative view of the environmental performance of family firms prevails over the positive view.

Growth is important for the long-term success of a business. Regrettably, the impact of family influence on firm growth is largely neglected. We examine whether family firms have a higher growth rate than their nonfamily counterparts. Based on a large sample of firms across 43 countries over a 10-year period, we show that family firms on average have higher growth rates than nonfamily firms, and this positive effect is greater for family firms operating in strong national institutional environments which are less corrupt, more democratic, more subject to rule of law, and have effective government policies. We also find that the positive effect of family influence on firm growth varies significantly across different types of family firms and different business cycles. These findings show that family control has an economically significant impact on growth rates and important implications for both family firm theory and practice.

Recognizing that business model innovation (BMI) is a constant source of value creation in the digital economy, we examine the nexus between absorptive capacity and strategic flexibility, and their effects on BMI. We argue that to increase strategic flexibility and innovate their business model, firms need to develop their potential absorptive capacity (acquisition and assimilation of knowledge) as well as their realized absorptive capacity (transformation and exploitation of knowledge). While potential absorptive capacity drives both BMI and strategic flexibility, realized absorptive capacity increases a firm’s strategic flexibility. Our analysis of 282 Italian small- and medium-sized firms also shows a relationship between realized absorptive capacity and BMI, but only under conditions of environmental uncertainty.

New digital technologies have prompted many firms, including family firms, to innovate their business models. We study the role of dynamic capabilities as mediator in the relationship between family influence and digital business model innovation (BMI), and the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Based on unique survey data from 1,444 German firms with and without family influence, we reveal that knowledge exploitation, risk management, and marketing capabilities mediate the positive relationship between family influence and digital BMI. Surprisingly, and contrary to our assumption, we find that the positive relationship between family influence and dynamic capabilities is weakened rather than strengthened by environmental dynamism. Our findings hold important implications for family business innovation and digital BMI research, offering valuable insights into the role of dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism in the digital economy.

This paper reviews and systematizes the empirical research on the nexus between corporate governance (CG) and investments in research and development (R&D) published in leading business, management, economics and finance journals over the past 30 years. We find that CG is key in shaping R&D investments. Moreover, the effects of both firm‐ and country‐level CG are important for both internal and external R&D investments. Drawing on our review, we welcome future studies to examine the effect of the interplay between various CG mechanisms and different types of R&D investments, and possibly identify mediating variables besides the moderating ones. Moreover, we highlight the need for future interdisciplinary studies, as well as investigations of private companies and across developing countries. Whenever causal interpretations are attempted, both sample selection and endogeneity problems should be addressed, along with testing the CG‐R&D investment nexus for nonlinear dynamics. The implications of the study for both theory and practice are also discussed.

An effective country-level legal environment is crucial for promoting access to finance, development, and ultimately economic growth. Based on a sample of large companies listed in Continental Europe in the period 2002–2011, this study suggests that investor protection level is related to firm growth. Specifically, investor protection: a) enhances the growth rate of the firm; b) affects growth sensitivity to leverage and cash flow. These results provide empirical support to recommendations by policy makers advocating for increased investor protection in Europe.