Family firm heterogeneity on CSR approach: A socio-emotional (SEW) perspective

Diéguez-So o, Julio; Campos-Valenzuela, Ma a; Callejón-Gil, Ángela M.;
Aldeanue a-Fe nández, Ignacio
A icle
Family i m he e ogenei y on CSR app oach: A socio-
emo ional (SEW) pe spec i e
BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e ly
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Asociación Cien í ica de Economía y Di ección de Emp esas (ACEDE), Mad id
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Diéguez-So o, Julio; Campos-Valenzuela, Ma a; Callejón-Gil, Ángela M.;
Aldeanue a-Fe nández, Ignacio (2024) : Family i m he e ogenei y on CSR app oach: A socio-
emo ional (SEW) pe spec i e, BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e ly, ISSN 2340-9444, Sage Publishing,
London, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, pp. 443-466,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444211063889
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/327052
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444211063889
Business Resea ch Qua e ly
2024, Vol. 27(4) 443 –466
© The Au ho (s) 2021
A icle euse guidelines:
sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions
DOI: 10.1177/23409444211063889
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/b q
C ea i e Commons Non Comme cial CC BY-NC: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion-NonComme cial 4.0 License (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which pe mi s non-comme cial use,
ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and
Open Access page (h ps://uk.sagepub.com/abou us/openaccess.h m).
In oduc ion
Based on he model o Quazi and O’B ien (2000) and d aw-
ing on he heo e ical iew o socio-emo ional weal h (SEW,
as discussed, o example, in Gómez-Mejía e al., 2007), his
s udy examines he he e ogenei y o amily i ms (FFs) in
e ms o hei co po a e social esponsibili y (CSR)
app oaches. Speci ically, we add ess he ollowing esea ch
ques ion: Which o he SEW dimensions, ei he indi idually
o combined, seem o ha e he mos a o able o un a o a-
ble impac on he choice o a CSR app oach? The e o e, his
wo k p o ides an in-dep h analysis o wha app oaches FFs
main ain as ega ds CSR, depending on wha hei key e e -
ence poin s (SEW dimensions) a e. Hence, his s udy con-
ibu es o unde s anding how and why he he e ogenei y in
FFs in e ms o SEW may help us o explain he non-homo-
genei y in FFs ega ding CSR app oaches.
Family business li e a u e has ecognized he ele ance o
SEW, o iginally concep ualized as “ he non- inancial aspec s
o he i m ha mee he amily’s a ec i e needs such as
iden i y, he abili y o exe cise amily in luence, and he
pe pe ua ion o he amily dynas y” (Gómez-Mejía e al., 2007,
p. 106). SEW is he key ac o di e en ia ing FFs and es ab-
lishes ha when FFs make s a egic decisions, like adop ing
a speci ic CSR app oach, hey conside he consequences o
hese decisions in hei a ec i e endowmen (Be one e al.,
2012). Acco dingly, he esea ch su ounding CSR wi hin
Family i m he e ogenei y on CSR
app oach: A socio-emo ional (SEW)
pe spec i e
Julio Diéguez-So o1, Ma a Campos-Valenzuela2,
Ángela M. Callejón-Gil1 and Ignacio Aldeanue a-Fe nández3
Abs ac
How amily i ms adop a ce ain co po a e social esponsibili y (CSR) app oach emains a ela i ely unexplo ed ma e
in amily i m and i m e hics esea ch. Hence, we s udy how and why he CSR app oach (b oad s. na ow; bene i s s.
cos s) di e s wi hin amily i ms, add essing he in luence o he socio-emo ional weal h (SEW) dimensions, indi idually
o combined. We used empi ical e idence ga he ed h ough 13 case s udies o i ms om he Andalusia egion and
we used he in e p e a i e app oach o he g ounded heo y based on case s udy da a. Resul s o ou analyses lead o
p opose ha amily i ms wi h a highe iden i ica ion and mo e posi i e han nega i e alence wi h ega d o emo ional
a achmen and amily en ichmen dimensions will be mo e likely o exhibi a b oad app oach o CSR. Likewise, hose
amily i ms adop ing CSR ac ions wi h s akeholde s due o ins umen al use o image and epu a ion dimension will
mo e p obably display a bene i s app oach.
JEL CLASSIFICATION: L26; M14
Keywo ds
Socio-emo ional weal h, amily i m, CSR app oach, case s udy
1 Finance and Accoun ing Depa men , Uni e sidad de Málaga, Málaga,
Spain
2 PhD s uden a he Doc o al P og am in Economics and Business,
Uni e sidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
3 Depa men o Economics and Business Adminis a ion, Uni e sidad
de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Co esponding au ho :
Julio Diéguez-So o, Finance and Accoun ing Depa men , Uni e sidad
de Málaga, El Ejido, s/n. 29071 Málaga, Spain.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
1063889BRQ0010.1177/23409444211063889Business Resea ch Qua e lyDiéguez-So o e al.
esea ch-a icle2021
Regula Pape
444 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
FFs based on SEW has inc eased in he pas yea s (Be one
e al., 2010; C uz e al., 2014; Dye & Whe en, 2006). Ye
he e is no consensus ega ding whe he FFs a e mo e o less
socially esponsible han non-FFs (C uz e al., 2014). While
some au ho s ha e shown ha FFs we e mo e likely o be
engaged in co po a e social ac i i ies because hese main ain
and imp o e hei accumula ed endowmen (Cennamo e al.,
2012; Dye & Whe en, 2006; Gallo e al., 2004), o he s
ound jus he opposi e (Mo ck & Yeung, 2004). This can be
due o, o ins ance, “amo al amilism” o a dis us o ou -
side s (e.g., he amily boa d’s dis us o non- amily CEOs)
(Ban ield, 1958; Dye & Whe en, 2006) o he “da k side”
o SEW (like nepo ism o sel -se ing beha io s, among o h-
e s) (Kelle manns e al., 2012). This p e ious e idence indi-
ca es bo h ha FF may no be a uni o m i m ype in e ms o
CSR engagemen (Dick e al., 2020) and ha he dual-
alenced na u e o SEW (Kelle manns e al., 2012) makes
FFs he e ogeneous when i comes o CSR (Mi chell e al.,
2011). The e a e wo easons why he e may be mo e
di e ences wi h ega d o CSR wi hin FFs han be ween FFs
and non-FFs: (1) he highe disc e ion o ac ha his so o
i m may demons a e and (2) hem conside ing SEW as
hei main ame o e e ence (Ch isman & Pa el, 2012).
Consequen ly, p e ious li e a u e di ec s schola s o
ocus on examining “why” FFs a e di e en om each
o he (Van Gils e al., 2014) ega ding hei CSR beha io
(C uz e al., 2014). Thus, e y ecen esea ch has s a ed
o e ol e a ound he e ogenei y in FFs ega ding CSR
engagemen based on SEW (Dick e al., 2020; Ma ques
e al., 2014). Howe e , hese s udies ha e been ocused
mainly on highligh ing he e ec o only ce ain SEW
dimensions on CSR engagemen , namely amily in luence
and con ol and iden i ica ion, hus in essence uling ou
he e ec o o he SEW dimensions on CSR beha io .
The e o e, i is no known which dimension is mo e
in luen ial, no is i known which dimensions o SEW ac
simila ly and which a ec CSR di e en ly. Fu he mo e,
o shed ligh on he he e ogenei y in FFs wi h espec o
CSR, and gi en he dual na u e o SEW in gene al e ms, a
mo e app op ia e ques ion o ask is wha CSR app oach
hey a e likely adop based on which dimensions o SEW,
indi idually o combined, a e hei key e e ence poin s.
The e o e, and despi e he SEW pe spec i e being a p e alen
heo e ical amewo k ha enables academics o be e
explain why FFs pe o m dis inc ly in e ms o social
issues (Be one e al., 2010; Neubaum e al., 2012), p io
li e a u e has no add essed, o he bes o ou knowledge,
whe he a wide ange o p ope ly assessed SEW dimen-
sions, indi idually o combined, de e mine he CSR
app oach o FFs, conside ing a wide spec um o CSR
ac ions. Gi en ha FFs a e no homogeneous in e ms o
CSR (Lamb e al., 2017), we need o ha e a mo e comp e-
hensi e unde s anding o he ne in luence o di e en
SEW e e ence poin s o amily ac o s (Dick e al., 2020)
on he CSR app oach chosen.
To cap u e he indi iduals’ ac ual subjec i e hough s,
eelings, mo i a ions, beha io , expe iences, and in e p e-
a ions h ough hei own wo ds (G aebne e al., 2012;
Jiang e al., 2018) ega ding CSR engagemen in hei FF,
we pu sued a quali a i e s udy app oach, speci ically, a
mul iple s udy me hod. We ollowed an in en ional sam-
pling app oach. We iden i ied he FFs aking pa in his
induc i e s udy h ough p elimina y in e iews wi h some
expe s om he Con ede a ion o Employe s and Indus y
o Andalusia (CFA). F om Janua y o Oc obe o he yea
2018, we ca ied ou 30 in e iews in 15 FFs loca ed in
sou he n Spain, wi h wo pa icipan s pe FF. The analysis
o he da a indica es ha iden i ica ion, emo ional a ach-
men s, and amily en ichmen a e he key SEW dimen-
sions ha help o explain how and why FFs op o a
na ow e sus b oad CSR app oach. Likewise, image and
epu a ion, as he ue d i e o binding social ies, is he
pa amoun SEW dimension o unde s anding FF he e o-
genei y in e ms o CSR cos s e sus bene i s.
This s udy con ibu es o he cu en esea ch, bo h in
e ms o heo y building and empi ical es ing, wi h ega d
o he in eg a ion o p e alen amily di e ences (Powell &
Eddles on, 2017; Ruesch & Ba eson, 2017) in hei CSR
app oach. In his s udy, we highligh ha di e en dimen-
sions o SEW may de e mine dis inc CSR app oaches, u -
he elucida ing he easons behind FF he e ogenei y and
e ining ou knowledge o FFs (Jaskiewicz & Dye , 2017).
Ou s udy is among he i s o s udy he he e ogenei y o
FFs wi h espec o CSR engagemen using he SEW
app oach as a e e ence. Also, his explo a o y analysis o
he in luence o SEW on he CSR app oach, no jus om a
gene al poin o iew bu a he analyzing each pa icula
dimension o SEW, is o ally new in he esea ch. Wi h
ega d o CSR, i is also qui e o iginal as i d aws on Quazi
and O’B ien’s model, adop ing a comp ehensi e pe spec-
i e ha in eg a es bo h classical and mode n pa adigms
and allows us o be e unde s and he he e ogenei y o FFs
in CSR. Thus, his esea ch no only iden i ies SEW dimen-
sions ha we e p e iously included in di e en SEW
amewo ks (iden i ica ion, emo ional a achmen s, amily
en ichmen ) o shed ligh on he b oad e sus he na ow
app oach, i also iden i ies he unde lying SEW dimension
explaining social ies, namely image and epu a ion, o
unde s and he choice be ween he bene i s e sus cos s
app oach. This s udy also posi s ha FFs choose a ce ain
CSR app oach conside ing bo h he ele ance o he b igh
and he da k sides o pa icula SEW dimensions, namely
iden i ica ion, emo ional a achmen s, and amily en ich-
men , and he ins umen al use o non-ins umen al use o
image and epu a ion when engaging in CSR. Thus, his
a icle also de ies p io esea ch es ablishing ha SEW is
always a p o-social and a o able incen i e. Finally, his
s udy is also an excellen an ido e agains he isk o he
ei ica ion o SEW (Jiang e al., 2018) since i measu es
SEW using a quali a i e/in e p e a i e app oach, adop ing
Diéguez-So o e al. 445
a comp ehensi e iew ha makes i unlikely o dismiss he
in luence o any SEW dimension on he CSR app oach.
Theo e ical backg ound
A amewo k o s udy CSR app oach in amily
i ms
The maximiza ion o p o i s as he sole objec i e o he
i m is some hing ha , o some decades now, has been
se iously ques ioned in he business con ex . Al hough i is
ela i ely di icul o loca e i s o igin, CSR has g adually
acqui ed a signi ican ole in business managemen since
Bowen (1953) linked he in e es s o i ms and socie y in
he long e m. CSR has been de ined in a a ie y o ways
o e he yea s. The mos popula de ini ion o CSR is p o-
posed by Ca oll (1979): “ he social esponsibili y o busi-
ness encompasses he economic, legal, e hical, and
disc e iona y expec a ions ha socie y has o o ganiza-
ions a a gi en poin in ime” (p. 500). And mo e ecen ly,
McWilliams and Siegel (2001) de ined i as “ac ions ha
appea o u he some social good, beyond he in e es s o
he i m and ha which a e equi ed by law” (p. 117). The
link be ween CSR and sus ainabili y is s ong. Ma ewijk
(2003) sugges ed ha “in gene al, co po a e sus ainabili y
and CSR e e o i m olun a y ac i i ies, by de ini ion
demons a ing he inclusion o social and en i onmen al
conce ns in business ope a ions and in in e ac ions wi h
s akeholde s” (p. 102). Howe e , he e is no single uni e -
sally accep ed de ini ion o CSR. Ra he , he e a e dozens
o hem p oposed by academics and o ganiza ions. In mos
o hem, olun a iness and s akeholde o ien a ion appea
as di e en ia ing ea u es o CSR (Dahls ud, 2008).
The g ea e o lesse deg ee o esponsible beha io o
he i m is linked o i s ision o CSR. Howe e , eali y
shows ha i m decisions do no only depend on c i e ia o
esponsibili y owa d hi d pa ies bu a e also condi ioned
by he cos s and bene i s ha may de i e om hem. Wi h
he in en ion o combining hese wo dimensions, Quazi
and O’B ien (2000) de ine a wo-dimensional model in
which hey conside no only he b oad o na ow ision
ha he i m has o CSR, bu also he in luence ha cos s
and bene i s ha e on decision-making, since any decision
will change he ne p o i s. The wo ex emes o he
ho izon al axis a e “na ow esponsibili y” ( igh ) and “wide
esponsibili y” (le ). “Na ow esponsibili y” ep esen s
he con en ional business ou look, acco ding o which a
i m’s sho - e m objec i e is s ic ly p o i maximiza ion.
“Wide esponsibili y” ep esen s he b oade social ou -
look, in which companies, beyond me e compliance wi h
egula ions, choose o engage in communi y de elopmen ,
en i onmen al p o ec ion, and conse a ion o na u al
esou ces, among o he hings. The wo ex emes o he
e ical axis a e “bene i s om CSR ac ion” and “cos s
om CSR ac ion.” Fi ms placing emphasis on sho - e m
esul s end o be conce ned abou he cos o CSR ac ions
and he e o e g a i a e owa d he lowe , nega i e end o
he spec um. Fi ms wi h a ocus on long- e m esul s, on
he assump ion ha he bene i s e en ually exceed he
cos s, mo e owa d he uppe , posi i e end o he model
(Melo e al., 2012; Quazi & O’B ien, 2000).
The wo-dimensional CSR model by Quazi and O’B ien
(2000) de eloped and alida ed he cons uc s and
measu emen s o e alua e how i m leade ship iews CSR.
In compa ison wi h o he models, Quazi and O’B ien
acili a e he analy ical powe o comp ehend he in ica e
phenomena o CSR and o ecognize he inconsis encies
be ween he opinion and he employmen o he p inciples
o he CSR app oach (O ega e al., 2016). This model
b ings oge he bo h classical and mode n CSR pa adigms,
making i possible o ake in o accoun aspec s o bo h
when examining manage ial app oaches o CSR (Jamali &
Sidani, 2008). Mo eo e , his CSR model wi h wo axes
has a wide scope, allowing o he de e mina ion o man-
age s’ pe cep ions in di e en economic and cul u al con-
ex s (Galla do e al., 2013). In ac , his model has been
es ed empi ically ac oss di e en coun ies and cul u es
( ansna ional model) (see Cab e a e al., 2005; Jamali &
Sidani, 2008; Melo e al., 2012), in FF con ex s (Déniz &
Cab e a, 2005), and in mo e di e si ied se ings (Jamali
e al., 2009; Vi ije ic e al., 2020). Likewise, he imple-
men a ion o he Quazi and O’B ien (2000) model has p o-
ided encou aging indings in FF li e a u e, in which he
model has been conside ed bo h di ec ly (Cab e a e al.,
2005; Déniz & Cab e a, 2005; He nández e al., 2017;
O ega e al., 2016) and indi ec ly (A agón e al., 2019;
A agón & I u ioz, 2016).
SEW and CSR in amily i ms
Ce ainly, esea ch has used Beha io al Theo y o explain
why FFs a e di e en om non-FFs: emo ional alue o
owne ship, p ese a ion o SEW, and al uism (De Massis
e al., 2015). FFs s i e o pa icula amily-cen e ed, non-
inancial goals, while non-FFs will do so e y a ely o no a
all (Mille & Le B e on-Mille , 2014). In o he wo ds, when
making decisions, including hose ela ed o CSR, FFs
employ a mix o bo h amily-o ien ed and business-o ien ed
goals (Mah o e al., 2010). In addi ion o inancial
weal h, FFs gi e a special ele ance o SEW, de ined
as he “non- inancial aspec s o he i m ha mee he
amily’s a ec i e needs” (Gómez-Mejía e al., 2007, p. 106).
In he li e a u e, a gumen s assessing he link be ween
FFs and CSR a e mixed (as in Be one e al. (2010); El
Ghoul e al. (2016)), indica ing ha FFs may no be a homo-
geneous g oup as ega ds how hey app oach CSR (Déniz &
Cab e a, 2005). FFs usually seek o achie e amily-cen e ed
goals (Ch isman e al., 2012), managing social issues di e en ly
(Bingham e al., 2011; Sha ma & Sha ma, 2011),
al hough his does no necessa ily mean ha FFs ha e a
446 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
highe CSR engagemen han non-FFs. Some s udies
p o ide us wi h a gumen s ha con i m a be e beha io
ela ed o CSR han non-FFs. In FFs, he e is a g ea e incen-
i e han in o he o ganiza ions o ensu e he sa is ac ion o
all s akeholde s, bo h in e nal and ex e nal, assuming a se
o challenges and p io i izing he mos impo an ones
(Mi chell e al., 2011; Zellwege & Nason, 2008). This may
be due o he amily’s conce n o i s epu a ion (Sagede
e al., 2018; Zellwege e al., 2013), image, and o p o ec i s
asse s (Dye & Whe en, 2006). The p e alence o he amily’s
co e alues has led FFs o pay mo e a en ion o he needs o
hei employees and in e nal s akeholde s han o he kinds
o i ms (Huang e al., 2009). In his ega d, he special ype
o socializa ion ha akes place in an FF helps de ine an
a ec i e clima e ha explains he high le els o iden i ica-
ion, in ol emen , and loyal y ha employees usually ha e
in hese ypes o i ms (Vallejo & Langa, 2010). Family
owne ship also posi i ely in luences he employees, as well
as he en i onmen al, legal, and e hical esponsibili ies o
he i m (Zhou, 2014). FFs a e less likely o engage in co po a e
misbeha io (Li z & S ewa , 2000) and o en ha e highe
deg ees o communi y in ol emen (Ding & Wu, 2014).
Mo eo e , as ega ds social issues, FFs a e mo e in e es ed
in and dissemina e a g ea e a ie y o CSR epo s han
non-FFs (Campopiano & De Massis, 2015). Howe e , a
di e en pa e n also eme ges om o he e idence. The
unique condi ions o FFs can lead o some amily membe s
engaging in oppo unis ic beha io s o e hically dubious
ac ions, which can impede he success o he i m and gene a e
a nega i e impac on employees, cus ome s, and o he
s akeholde s (Kidwell e al., 2012). In he same ein, some
ac o s such as al uism o nepo ism, among o he s, end o
damage he longe i y and e iciency o he FF (Ca ney,
2005).
FFs, in ela ion o CSR, a e no only di e en om
non-FFs, bu also di e en om each o he . Consequen ly,
no all FFs beha e in he same way in e ms o CSR. The
li e a u e iden i ies di e en cha ac e is ics o his ype o
i m ha de e mine hei g ea e o lesse commi men o
CSR. No all FFs a e equally in ol ed wi h socially
esponsible beha io , due o a iables such as gende ,
linkage, o communi y cohesion (Uhlane e al., 2004).
Families’ ea u es, alues, and cul u e (Déniz & Cab e a,
2005) and age, educa ional le el, and li ing in he same
communi y (Niehm e al., 2008) ha e also been iden i ied
as ac o s ha explain he he e ogenei y o FFs wi h
ega d o CSR beha io . Thus, FFs ha e been linked o
posi i e and nega i e beha io s wi h espec o hei
employees, cus ome s, and o he s akeholde s, which
showcase he di e si y o pe spec i es hese i ms ha e o
CSR (Cab e a e al., 2005). In addi ion, since CSR is a
mul idimensional concep (Block & Wagne , 2014), FFs
can beha e esponsibly in some dimensions o CSR and
i esponsibly in o he s a he same ime (C uz e al., 2014;
God ey e al., 2009).
SEW is seen as he mos impo an di e en ia o o he
FF as a unique en i y and i can help us o unde s and why
FFs a e no a homogeneous g oup wi h iden ical cha ac e is-
ics, beha io , and in e es s (Be one e al., 2012). Dis inc
dimensions o SEW may explain he di e en e e ence
poin s and speci ic FF decisions ega ding CSR, based on
he p io i y gi en o di e en SEW dimensions (Dick
e al., 2020). Hence, we aim o examine how dis inc SEW
dimensions may, indi idually o combined, impac he
CSR commi men o FFs. Al hough he e is no consensus
on wha SEW ep esen s (B igham & Payne, 2019), in his
heo e ical backg ound, we will ake he SEW dimensions
included in he FIBER cons uc as a e e ence o analyze
how and why hey may impac CSR, being pe haps he
mos in luen ial concep ualiza ion o SEW dimensions
(Swab e al., 2020). FIBER measu es he a ec i e endowmen s
by accoun ing o amily con ol and in luence,
iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he i m, binding
social ies, emo ional a achmen o amily membe s, and
he enewal o amily bonds h ough succession (Be one
e al., 2012). In his sense, and al hough Be one e al.
(2012) appea o assume ha all dimensions o SEW a e
linked o posi i e aspec s, SEW may ha e a da k side as
well (Kelle manns e al., 2012). As a consequence, we
a gue ha SEW is nei he always bene icial no always
des uc i e in e ms o CSR engagemen , and he e o e we
iden i y bo h he b igh and he da k side o SEW
dimensions in FFs as hey apply o CSR.
Re aining and e en ex ending amily con ol is o en
one o he c ucial d i e s o he beha io o FFs (C uz
e al., 2014). This SEW dimension illus a es he o e all
impac ha amily membe s can ha e on he i m, e alua-
ing o wha ex en amily membe s own he majo i y o
he sha es, con ol he i m’s s a egic decisions, occupy
execu i e posi ions, choose non- amily manage s and
di ec o s, compose he boa d o di ec o s, and a e commi -
ed o p ese ing amily con ol and independence and,
ul ima ely, o hei SEW (Be one e al., 2012). The long-
e m ou look in ol ed in amily con ol and succession
should enhance CSR policies (as discussed in Be one
e al. (2010)) due o CSR engagemen usually in ol ing
long- e m ision and con inuous commi men (A agón &
Sha ma, 2003). These equisi es a e mo e likely o be me
as amily con ol inc eases, gi en ha he e is a highe
willingness o pe pe ua e he FF and o make decisions ha
a o u u e hei s h ough a “gene a ional in es men
s a egy ha c ea es pa ien capi al” (Si mon & Hi , 2003,
p. 343). E en so, exe ing amily con ol and ensu ing
amily ans-gene a ional sus ainabili y may also lead o
hi ing amily membe s and/o hese indi iduals u he ing
hei ca ee in he FF wi hou hem ha ing he app op ia e
expe ise (Haynes e al., 2015), con lic ing wi h p o iding
equal ca ee oppo uni ies and wages o all s a (Eu opean
Commission, 2001). Tigh e amily con ol can also make
FFs less likely o olun a ily disclose hei co po a e

Diéguez-So o e al. 447
go e nance p ac ices (Ali e al., 2007) o e en make hem
mo e likely o in inge on good p ac ices in his ega d
(Ma in e al., 2016).
The iden i ica ion be ween he amily and he i m is
o en ano he main e e ence poin . This SEW dimension
comp ises he deg ee o he amily membe s’ sense o
belonging o he o ganiza ion, o wha ex en hey eel he
amily business’s success is hei own success, whe he he
i m has a g ea deal o pe sonal meaning o hem, whe he
being a membe o ha amily de ines hem deeply and
makes hem p oud, and inally, whe he clien s usually
associa e he amily name wi h he FF (Be one e al.,
2012). This is why he di e ences in he social beha io
among FFs migh also be based on he conce n o p ese -
ing he amily’s iden i ica ion wi h he o ganiza ion (C uz
e al., 2014; Gómez-Mejía e al., 2011). Family membe s,
who iden i y mo e wi h he FF, will end o be socially
esponsible because hey deeply assume he o ganiza ion
and amily’s goals and desi e o emain in and pe pe ua e
he o ganiza ion (Ma ques e al., 2014), con ibu ing o
enhancing he amily SEW (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz,
2013). The e o e, as iden i ica ion inc eases, FFs may be
mo e likely o ca y ou socially esponsible business
p ac ices (Ma ques e al., 2014), because he social dis-
app o al s emming om being i esponsible co po a e
ci izens could be mo e de imen al o amily membe s
since i s ains he amily’s name (Gómez-Mejía e al.,
2011). Despi e ha , a high le el o iden i ica ion be ween
he amily and he i m may also cause successo s o eel
locked in o and dependen upon he business (Schulze
e al., 2001), which may be associa ed wi h emo ional pain,
us a ion, and lack o au onomy. This may discou age
hem om placing a g ea e emphasis on CSR ac i i ies.
Ano he in luen ial SEW dimension is binding social
ies, which e e s o an o ganiza ion’s binding social ela-
ionships gene a ed by means o amily and social ies. I
ep esen s ela ionships wi h bo h in e nal and ex e nal
s akeholde s ha a e based on us and ecip oci y and
g ounded in he long e m (Be one e al., 2012). FFs can
display a di e en a i ude owa d CSR ac ions a ge ing
s akeholde s. FFs may also be mo e willing o engage in
CSR ac i i ies because his implies gene a ing mo e obus
bonds wi h hei in e nal and ex e nal s akeholde s, o he
sake o gene a ing ca ing dynamics (C uz e al., 2014) and
o accumula ing social capi al (A egle e al., 2007). FFs
a e gene ally awa e o he ele ance o ea ing employees
as “pa o he amily” h ough wo kplace CSR ac ions,
because main aining an excellen ela ionship wi h hese
c ucial collabo a o s is likely o p oduce ca ing beha io
ha esul s in mo e in ol emen in decision-making
(Saleem e al., 2020). Likewise, amily membe s a e
inclined o be p o oundly dedica ed o hei supplie s, cus-
ome s, and compe i o s, oo ed in hei communi ies and
e y ac i e in hei close social en i onmen , by means o
ma ke place, en i onmen al, and social CSR engagemen
(Cennamo e al., 2012). Thus, FFs wi h mo e solid bonds
wi h ex e nal s akeholde s a e mo e likely o show a
g ea e conce n o social ini ia i es and he b oade
collec i e wel a e (Bingham e al., 2011) and o adop a
mo e p oac i e social engagemen posi ion (Cennamo
e al., 2012). This c ea es a posi i e eedback loop o
inc eased obus ela ionships ha con ibu e o p ese ing
and enhancing hei SEW. On he o he hand, FFs may also
display a o i ism and nepo ism, disc imina ing agains
non- amily employees and being eluc an o engage in
CSR wo kplace ini ia i es (Zien a a, 2017). This is because
hey pe cei e ha his beha io does no necessa ily esul
in de imen al ou comes o he i m o he employees, no
will i a nish he amily’s image and epu a ion (Zellwege
e al., 2013). Likewise, FFs may place less emphasis
on ex e nal s akeholde s since a high le el o commi men
o hese s akeholde s migh , by limi ing he disc e ion
o amily ac o s (Dick e al., 2020), jeopa dize SEW
endowmen . In sho , he e a e also FFs who de e mine
ha igno ing s akeholde - ela ed CSR issues does no
necessa ily ha e o be i a ional o sel -de ea ing, no
p oduce undesi able ou comes o SEW endowmen . As
a esul , hey may no adop CSR ini ia i es owa d
s akeholde s i hey a e no likely o ob ain SEW gains
om his ype o ac ions.
Likewise, CSR engagemen may also be imp o ed due
o emo ions wi hin he o ganiza ion. This pa icula SEW
dimension ep esen s he in luence o emo ions and
ela ionships be ween amily membe s on business
decision-making and comp ises aspec s such as a eeling
o p o ec ion, pe sonal iden i y, and wa m h owa d one
ano he (Be one e al., 2012). The need o belonging,
a ec ion, in imacy, and/o cohesion may be me when
amily membe s, a e implemen ing CSR ac i i ies,
ecei e ecogni ion (Schulze e al., 2003) and social
suppo om iends and acquain ances (Co be a &
Sal a o, 2004). Thus, amily membe s showing g ea e
emo ional a achmen o he i m a e mo e likely o
mani es g ea e social conce n (Be one e al., 2010).
Howe e , emo ional a achmen has also been shown o
lead o ba les o con ol among amily lines and po en ial
hei s (Go don & Nicholson, 2008), making i mo e likely
o hem o seek sel -se ing in e es s and less p obable o
hem o cul i a e CSR ac i i ies.
In sho , he li e a u e has iden i ied he wo-p onged
na u e o SEW dimensions in e ms o hinde ing o acili-
a ing CSR, e ealing he inadequacy o conside ing SEW
in gene al o only some dimensions o SEW o explain
CSR beha io in FFs, since his gi es ise o con adic o y
indings. Consequen ly, and gi en he dual na u e o SEW,
i would be mo e bene icial o ask wha CSR app oach FFs
adop . This is why we in es iga e how and why he CSR
app oach di e s wi hin FFs depending on he weigh and
impo ance o each SEW dimension o he decision make .
In his sense, in p inciple we do no wan o impose a link
448 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
be ween he SEW dimensions and hose o he Quazi and
O’B ien model based on unclea assump ions om p e i-
ous publica ions. Ra he , and al hough we ex ac ce ain
heo e ical a gumen s om he exis ing li e a u e, we use a
mul iple case s udy o shed ligh on he abo e inadequacies
and con adic ions, ga he ing da a and building in e es ing
indings by cap u ing indi iduals’ own expe iences and
in e p e a ions. The e o e, in he cu en sec ion, we ha e
only iden i ied a se o dimensions ha should be looked a
o spo he majo SEW-based di e ences wi hin FFs
ega ding he CSR cha ac e is ics. This will be used as a
lens h ough which o ga he and in e p e he empi ical
e idence collec ed du ing he mul iple case s udy.
Me hods
Case selec ion
FFs in Spain accoun o 89% o he o al i ms in he
coun y, ep esen ing a ound 1.1 million i ms (Family
Fi m Ins i u e, 2017), which gi es us an idea o hei
impo ance o he Spanish economy. In his a icle, we
conside an FF as a i m in which amily plays a signi ican
owne ship and manage ial ole (De Massis e al., 2015).
Speci ically, we adop ed he ollowing c i e ia o iden i y
FFs: (1) 50% o mo e o o dina y o ing sha es a e owned
by membe s o he amily, ela ed by blood and/o
ma iage (Wes head e al., 2001); (2) he CEO belongs o
he amily (C uz e al., 2014); and (3) he i m is pe cei ed
by he chie execu i e o ice o be an FF (Wes head e al.,
2001).
When selec ing FFs o he cu en esea ch, we ollowed
an in en ional sampling app oach, which en ailed seeking
he so-called maximum a ia ion (Pa on, 1980), a o m o
sampling in which he people selec ed as in e iewees
ep esen he gene al popula ion ends and include p o en
cases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Ou esea ch is also based
on pola sampling, since his allows us o unde s and
ex eme cases o obse e con as ing pa e ns in he da a
wi h g ea e ease (Eisenha d & G aebne , 2007). Mo e in
de ail, we iden i ied he FFs aking pa in his mul iple case
s udy h ough p elimina y in e iews wi h some expe s
om he CEA, an o ganiza ion ha includes mo e han
150,000 i ms in his egion o sou he n Spain and is a
membe o he Na ional Con ede a ion o Fi m
O ganiza ions. These CEA membe s helped us o con igu e
an ini ial FF sample, wi h which we we e able o illus a e
all he popula ion ends conce ning he CSR app oach
acco ding o he Quazi and O’B ien scale. This allowed us
o analyze all he di e en app oaches (b oad s. na ow;
bene i s s. cos s) and o obse e e y dis inc cases o
sc u inize di e gen CSR app oaches in he da a. In sho ,
he ini ial sample selec ed allowed us o illus a e
ep esen a i e i ms o each and e e y quad an om he
Quazi and O’B ien (2000) model. Ha ing FFs wi h b oad
e sus na ow and bene i e sus cos app oaches allowed
us o iden i y di e ences in he CSR app oach due o SEW
he e ogenei y. In sho , by aking ad an age o he expe ise
a he CEA, we could iden i y an ini ial sample o 15 FFs
which we e he e ogeneous in e ms o CSR app oach and
gene al cha ac e is ics such as indus y, size, geog aphical
loca ion (we ocused indeed on i ms headqua e ed in
Sou he n Spain, o he sake o con enience), FF gene a ion,
and he numbe o gene a ions in cha ge.
Ques ionnai e
Ou esea ch is based, om he SEW pe spec i e, on he
commi men o FF manage s wi h CSR and he bene i s/
cos s ha his implies. We collec ed hese p elimina y da a
om a limi ed in e ne ques ionnai e comple ed by he
manage s and/o owne s o he i m. Using his
ques ionnai e, we i s explo ed wha he i m’s CSR
app oach was; each i m was eques ed o sel -iden i y i s
ision (mode n, socioeconomic, classical, o philan h opic)
acco ding o he s a emen s/scale de eloped by Quazi and
O’B ien (2000). In his sense, acco ding o his scale, he
i ms ha op ed o socially esponsible ac ions because
hey we e con inced o he economic bene i s he eo ha e
a mode n ision (b oad and bene i app oach). They
conside ha he i m mus main ain a b oad ela ionship
wi h socie y and ha CSR ac ions imply sho and long-
e m bene i s. Fi ms wi h a socioeconomic ision (na ow
and cos app oach) ha e a educed ision o CSR bu accep
he impo ance o CSR measu es, because hey can gene a e
ne bene i s o he i m. Fi ms wi h a socioeconomic iew
pu sue bo h he maximiza ion o i m bene i s and paying
a en ion o social equi emen s. Fi ms ha ha e a classic
iew (na ow and cos app oach) o CSR ha e no objec i e
o he han maximizing p o i s and belie e ha socially
esponsible decisions a e only going o imply an inc ease in
ne cos s and no eal bene i s. Finally, hose i ms wi h a
philan h opic ision (b oad and cos app oach) p io i ize
he bene i ha hei ac ions ha e on socie y o e he cos
ha his may ha e o hem. They a e eage o ca y ou
esponsible social ac ions e en hough hese may ha e a ne
cos o he i m.
Likewise, each i m assessed i s FIBER dimensions in
he ques ionnai e, using Like - ype esponses, on he basis
o he SEW measu e p oposed by Be one e al. (2012).
The FIBER scale includes i e dimensions and i s le e s
s and o Family con ol and in luence (F), Iden i ica ion
o amily membe s wi h he i m (I), Binding social ies
(B), Emo ional a achmen o amily membe s (E), and he
Renewal o amily bonds o he i m h ough dynas ic
succession (R) (Be one e al., 2012; Mu phy e al., 2019).
To sum up, using he ques ionnai e esponses, we iden-
i ied which po en ial social esponsibili y app oach he
i m had and wha dimension(s) o FIBER was/we e mo e
p ominen in each i m in acco dance wi h hei
Diéguez-So o e al. 449
own pe cep ion. This allowed us o ini ially dis inguish FF
he e ogenei y and iden i y CSR beha io pa e ns o design
in e iews, which a e explained in de ail in a speci ic
sec ion below due o hei impo ance in his s udy.
Resea ch app oach
Ou quali a i e esea ch, associa ed wi h in e p e a i e
p oposi ions (Mee oo & Temple, 2003), uses he case
s udy me hod. In his, i becomes necessa y o analyze
con empo a y and p ac ically new phenomena (Yin, 2003)
using se e al da a collec ion me hods o ob ain in o ma-
ion om one o mo e en i ies (Benbasa e al., 1987).
F om a case s udy analyzed, i is possible o gene a e
impo an concep s o p inciples ha may be ex apola ed
o o he s (Gioia e al., 2012).
Speci ically, we used a mul iple case s udy, one o he
ou possibili ies ha Yin (2003) includes in his esea ch
da a, o unde s and how and why he b oad/na ow
app oach and he cos s/bene i s o CSR di e wi hin FFs.
Thus, we u ilized an induc i e app oach, which is pa icu-
la ly app op ia e o build heo e ical ideas om case s udy
da a (S auss & Co bin, 1998). We ocused on unde s anding
he con en o he opinions and he belie s ha he mana-
ge s in e iewed ha e ega ding ou main esea ch ques-
ion, hei ends in his con ex , and he main implica ions
o he mos ep esen a i e ac ions, as Nag and Gioia (2012)
did. A a ionale o using his me hodological ou e is
ob aining he indi iduals’ own subjec i e expe iences and
in e p e a ions ega ding wha mo i a es a i m’s CSR
app oach, wi hou imposing a speci ic heo e ical ame-
wo k on he da a p io o da a collec ion (G aebne e al.,
2012). This me hodological app oach could also iden i y
hemes and/o a iables ha may no ha e been included
in p e ious heo e ical iews and ha may essen ially
explain why and how FFs adop a pa icula CSR app oach.
The ecommended numbe o i ms o analyze in an
in es iga ion depends on he exis ing knowledge o he
subjec and he in o ma ion ha can be ob ained by inco -
po a ing addi ional case s udies (Eisenha d , 1991). The
opic add essed in his a icle is sca ce in he li e a u e,
which allows us o jus i y he choice o a limi ed numbe
o cases. Fu he mo e, o ein o ce he choice o he num-
be o i ms inally selec ed, we u ilized a da a sa u a ion
s a egy (Eisenha d , 1989a; Suddaby, 2006), which
implies ha i an addi ional s udy case is added and does
no gene a e any new knowledge, i is hen unde s ood ha
he numbe o cases used is he co ec one. Thus, we ini-
ially ga he ed da a om 15 FFs, bu sa u a ion was
eached wi h 13 i ms, which de ined he inal sample o
he s udy.
The cha ac e is ics o he sampled i ms a e shown in
Table 1. We can obse e ha he e a e he e ogeneous i ms
wi h ega d o size and indus y wi hin each and e e y
CSR app oach, con i ming ha nei he size no indus y
a e he a iables ha bes explain FF beha io in e ms o
CSR app oach (Re e e, 2009).
Da a collec ion and da a analysis
As a p elimina y s ep be o e p epa ing o and ca ying ou
he in e iews, in o ma ion om he i ms was p ocessed
by applying da a educ ion, da a display, da a ca ego iza-
ion, and da a con ex ualiza ion (De Massis & Ko la ,
2014). Likewise, we held a i s mee ing wi h a senio
manage o he i m o explain he objec i es and mo i a-
ions o he esea ch p ojec .
F om Janua y o Oc obe o 2018, we ca ied ou 30
in e iews a 15 FFs loca ed in sou he n Spain. These
in e iews we e conduc ed wi h he CEO, manage s, o
execu i es who we e knowledgeable abou he i m’s
global CSR s a egy. In his way, wi h a leas wo in o man s
pe FF, we go a mo e comple e iew o he con ex s udied
in each i m. We also ca ied ou in o mal in e iews wi h
he i m’s ounde in 70% o he i ms, o unde s and he
sou ces o he SEW ounda ion o he FF. As o he
emaining 30% o he i ms, we could no hold hese
in e iews because he i m’s ounde was no ac i e in he
i m o one eason o ano he .
The in e iews we e conduc ed a he headqua e s o
o he loca ions speci ically indica ed by he i m manage s
o execu i es. Mo eo e , all i ms we e p o ided he
emails and ins i u ional elephone numbe s o he
esea che s in case, a e he in e iew, anyone wan ed o
p o ide addi ional in o ma ion i we equi ed i . The
s uc u e o he in e iews ca ied ou was as ollows:
gene al in o ma ion abou he i m, speci ic in o ma ion
ega ding he i m’s CSR policy, in o ma ion abou he
manage /execu i e in e iewed (academic aining,
p o essional expe ience, e c.), explana ion o he esea ch
we ca y ou , and esea ch ques ions. The in e iews las ed
on a e age 1.5 h , esul ing in app oxima ely 45 h o
mee ings, as is ypical in his so o esea ch (Nag e al.,
2007). We manually ansc ibed each o he 30 in e iews.
A leas wo esea che s we e always p esen in he
in e iew o ga he e e y impo an piece o da a. We
collec ed in o ma ion mainly om di ec in e iews wi h
open ques ions abou CSR s a egy and ac ions, eading
each in e iew se e al imes o unde s and he simila i ies
and di e ences be ween he in e iewees and hei i ms
(Nag & Gioia, 2012). Pa icula ly, ou phenomenon o
in e es was s udying he mo i a ions behind why each and
e e y FF adop s a pa icula CSR app oach. This is why
each pa icipan was asked wha ype o CSR hey usually
ca ied ou . They we e hen asked o discuss he easons
ha mo i a ed hose CSR ac ions. Fu he mo e, we also
collec ed in o ma ion om seconda y da a, such as i m
documen s, in e ne , o he p ess, ha is, we used a ious
da a sou ces in ou esea ch, as ecommended by Yin
(2003), wo king wi h quali a i e and quan i a i e e idence
450 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
Table 1. The s udy cases.
Fi m
code
Indus y Size FF gen No. o gen
in ol ed
No. o
amily
owne s
In o man s CSR app oach
acco ding o he
esul s o coding
Own i m pe cep ion
on CSR app oach
acco ding o
ques ionnai e
Own i m pe cep ion on
he mos ele an FIBER
dimension acco ding o
ques ionnai e
A T anspo and
s o age
Medium 3 1 3 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Family con ol
B T anspo and
s o age
Medium 2 1 5 Family CEO and
Family manage
Na ow and bene i s
(Socioeconomic)
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
Iden i ica ion
C Legal a ai s Small 2 1 3 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
Succession
D Cons uc ion Small 1 2 1 Family CEO and
amily manage
Na ow and cos s
(Classic)
Na ow and cos s
(Classic)
Family con ol
E Tou is ic sec o La ge 2 2 7 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Family con ol
F Cons uc ion Medium 2 2 4 Family CEO and
amily manage
Na ow and bene i s
(Socioeconomic)
Na ow and bene i s
(Socioeconomic)
Iden i ica ion
G Manu ac u ing La ge 3 1 1 Family CEO and
amily manage
Na ow and cos s
(Classic)
Na ow and bene i s
(Socioeconomic)
Family con ol
H Manu ac u ing Small 2 2 4 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
Iden i ica ion
I Manu ac u ing La ge 1 2 4 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Social ies
J Res o a ion La ge 2 2 6 Two amily
manage s
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Family con ol
K T anspo and
s o age
La ge 2 2 6 Family CEO and
amily manage
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Iden i ica ion
L Manu ac u ing Medium 2 1 4 Two amily
manage s
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
B oad and bene i s
(Mode n)
Family con ol
M Manu ac u ing La ge 4 2 14 Family CEO
and non- amily
manage
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
B oad and cos s
(Philan h opic)
Family con ol
FF: amily i m.
Diéguez-So o e al. 457
B oad e sus na ow app oach. Compa ing i ms wi h b oad
and na ow ision is, in ou speci ic case s udy, equi alen
o in es iga ing why i ms ha ing mode n and philan-
h opic iews a e di e en om i ms wi h classic and
socioeconomic iews. We disco e ed ha he key SEW
dimensions he e a e he iden i ica ion o amily membe s
wi h he i m and he le els o emo ional a achmen and
amily en ichmen .
In i ms wi h a b oad app oach, he iden i ica ion o
amily membe s wi h he i m implies a commi men o
CSR policies, since he alues o he amily become he
alues o he i m. One such example is he in e iewee
saying,
The p inciples ha my a he ins illed in us a e s ill p esen in
ou day- o-day li es . . . and we y o ea ou s a as no jus
wo ke s, bu a he also hinking abou he amilies behind
hem. My a he old us, “we don’ ha e 50 employees, we
ha e 50 amilies.” This causes us o econside many o ou
decisions. (A)
Ano he ema ked,
My a he said he business was his younges child and he
i m was his whole li e, and in some way i is he same o us
hanks o ou loyal y o him. Fo he same eason, we con inue
ea ing cus ome s wi h he same amilia i y and co diali y
ha ou a he used o do. They a e i s , e en when we know
we a e, in a ce ain way, was ing ou ime wi h hem. (H)
In sho , he iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he
i m is a consequence o he p ide hey ha e in belonging
o i . Thei su names a e iden i ied unequi ocally wi h
hei i ms, and in his sense, hey y o ensu e ha hei
CSR ac ions a e in line wi h hei p inciples and alues.
They aim o ensu e CSR policies, no only h ough amily
membe s, bu also by encou aging non- amily membe s o
iden i y wi h he alues o he amily. Robus amily mem-
be iden i ica ion wi h he i m gene a es a simila mindse
among employees, a con agion e ec , imp o ing he le el
o iden i ica ion wi h, commi men , and esponsibili y o
he i m. This way, he CSR s a egy is doubled.
The close ela ionship be ween he amily and he i m allows
he ac ions ca ied ou wi h he pe sonnel, supplie s and o he
ex e nal agen s o be aken om a CSR pe spec i e, being
awa e ha hei amily alues pe mea e hese decisions and
c ea e adi ions o be applied in he i m. (K)
Thus, a highe deg ee o iden i ica ion inc eases CSR
engagemen and is a c ucial ac o o explaining he e oge-
nei y wi hin FFs conce ning CSR beha io , as p e ious
esea ch sugges ed (Bingham e al., 2011; Ma ques e al.,
2014).
By con as , i ms wi h a na ow app oach display a low
deg ee o iden i ica ion be ween amily and i m, which is
mani es ed by sen ences such as
My i m is my way o li e, bu wi hou a amily bond. My
amily and hei ideals we e le behind. They ( he amily)
used o pay a en ion o o he c i e ia such as ecycling and
en i onmen al impac . Bu nowadays, he c i e ia o decision
making a e mainly economic. (D)
In i m B, he amily CEO claims ha
The a mosphe e in he i m has changed. The employees’
p io i ies a e simila o my a he ’s p io i ies, namely heal hy
wo king condi ions, ime lexibili y, e c., and hey do no ca e
abou he p o i . We know ha hese equi emen s ha e
nega i e consequences on ou income s a emen and we a e
no willing o main ain my a he ’s wo king condi ions. (B)
Fu he mo e, he admi s ha in Fi m B he e is no equali y
be ween all wo ke s, be ween amily membe s and non-
amily membe s. Consequen ly, amily membe s o
i ms wi h a na ow app oach appea o no be pu ing
aside hei pe sonal in e es s o he sake o he i m,
inc easing hei con lic s o in e es and nega i ely
impac ing he iden i ica ion wi h he FF, which in u n
leads o educed CSR engagemen . Ou in e iews seem
o show ha he employees o i ms wi h a low deg ee o
iden i ica ion may conside he beha io o he amily in
cha ge as a “ma ia,” which makes hem eel dis anced
om he i m’s goals and gene a es en y, suspicion, and
mis us . Tha is, a low deg ee o iden i ica ion may
ma e ialize as sel ishness and nepo ism, hinde ing he
CSR pe spec i es.
In sho , he iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he
i m appea s o ha e a a o able impac on he choice o a
b oad ision o CSR. Thus, we p opose he ollowing:
P oposi ion 1: The g ea e he iden i ica ion o amily
membe s wi h he i m, he g ea e he likelihood o dis-
playing a b oad ision o CSR.
Upon analyzing i ms wi h b oad and na ow isions,
we also con i m ha he e a e di e en le els o emo-
ional a achmen and amily en ichmen in FFs and we
ind ha he CSR beha io is di e en depending on
whe he emo ions and amily en ichmen lead o mo e
a o able han un a o able ou comes o ice- e sa.
Thus, he way o managing he emo ional componen and
amily ha mony also seems o de e mine he CSR
app oach, based on wo possible si ua ions: Fi s , ha in
which he b igh side o emo ional bonding and amily
en ichmen is highe han hei da k side (b oad app oach)
o con e sely ha he b igh side o he emo ional and
amily ha mony dimensions is lowe han hei da k side
(na ow app oach).
Fi ms wi h a b oad ision a e usually commi ed o
main aining amily ha mony and emo ional a achmen ,
con ibu ing o ac ions based on he alues and adi ions
o he amily.

458 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
In amily ela ionships wi hin he i m, he amily always
wins. . . . E en oday I make decisions hinking o he way my
a he used o, mainly wi h ega d o wo ke s and clien s.
Thanks o him, people we e always i s . My b o he s and I
some imes do no ag ee on inancial issues, bu when i comes
o (social) esponsibili y, we always decide as my a he
would ha e done. (C)
The e a e i ms ha openly acknowledge ha emo ional
ies and amily ha mony ha e a decisi e in luence on CSR
decision-making, since amily b eakdowns and i m b eak-
downs in p e ious gene a ions ha e ma ked hem in a con-
side able way, and hey ha e changed he ision o he
o ganiza ion and he amily, always gi ing p io i y o he
amily o e he i m (A and L). Fo hese i ms, ha ing a
s ong emo ional a achmen , ensu ing amily happiness,
and sa is ying hei a ec i e needs a e essen ial ea u es
ha explain hei engagemen in CSR ac i i ies, umping
he sel ish and u ili a ian alues o en jus i ied based on
su i al and sa e y needs.
We make decisions by consensus, al hough my a he has
mo e mo al clou . Anyway, i equen ly happens ha we
decide some hing and hen my a he has a co ee wi h he
cus ome s, who he calls iends a e so many yea s, and he
imp o es he condi ions o he con ac wi h a handshake.
We’ e OK wi h his, e en i i in ol es a highe cos , because
i is his business and, a he end o he day, he knows how o
manage i . (H)
Family con lic s and he ha m ul consequences hey
en ail, including making amily membe s’ ela ionships
collapse, may ha e an un a o able impac on CSR engage-
men . Some FFs wi h a b oad app oach become ully p o-
essionalized o diminish he nega i e ou comes o
emo ions and amily en ichmen , hei da k side.
Tha is why I ad ise p o essionalizing he i m, since i helps
o a oid amily and in e nal ensions in he i m. In he ace o
amily p oblems, we end o ake a while o alk hings
h ough. We y o go s ep by s ep, ying di e en op ions,
always wi h he in en ion o main aining uni y and doing
wha ’s bes o socie y . . . (J)
F om p o essionalism de i es
The delega ion o esponsibili ies/ asks and he eedom ha
eigns in he i m. The e is a lo o closeness, ecep i i y,
empa hy, speed in decisions and delega ion. The e is no
in luence peddling and he e is no as much bu eauc acy as in
o he i ms o simila size. (M)
Wha kills a amily business a e amily ela ionships. We a e
con inuously ying o make he i m un less like a amily . . .
In making decisions on which we may no ag ee ( o example,
his happened wi h my p oposal o c ea e es a eas o ou
s a wi hin he i m) bu we ha e o each an ag eemen . . .
Ou ac ions mus be socially esponsible; no one in he amily
has any doub abou ha , bu some imes we would disag ee
on he speci ic way o ca y hem ou . P o essionalizing he
i m has been a g ea idea o a oid amily con lic s . . . because
we wan amily alues o be e lec ed in ou se ice o socie y
. . . and we did his. (L)
Thus, i seems ha p o essionalism in some FFs wi h a
b oad app oach con ibu es o dec easing he des uc i e
side o emo ions and amily en ichmen , such as amily
con lic s, and o s eng hening he bene icial ou comes,
such as highe social conce n and posi i e beha io owa d
employees, which posi i ely a ec hei CSR engagemen
in he end.
On he o he hand, in ela ion o he i ms wi h na ow
app oach, he da k side o amily en ichmen and emo ions
is la ge han hei b igh side.
This is a i m ha is commi ed o echnology. In his case, he
i m’s decision p e ails o e he amily, ha is, i he e is a
amily membe who does no ag ee, we p e e o p io i ize he
e ec i eness o ha decision a he han he p ese a ion o
amily ha mony. (B)
In o he wo ds, hese i ms end o ca y ou CSR ac i i ies
only basing hem on economic ou comes, placing mo e
impo ance on economic a ionali y han on amily ela-
ionships and bonds.
The e o e, as p io li e a u e sugges ed, he emo ional
bond be ween he amily and he i m and main aining
amily ha mony in luence how he i m is managed (Ba on,
2008), pa icula ly in he decision-making ela ed o CSR
ac i i ies.
Based on he o me a gumen s, we p opose he
ollowing:
P oposi ion 2: I FFs a e mo e posi i ely han nega-
i ely alenced ega ding emo ional a achmen and
amily en ichmen dimensions, he likelihood o ha ing
a b oad ision o CSR will be highe .
Cos s e sus bene i s o CSR app oach. Compa ing i ms
wi h a cos s e sus bene i s-based CSR app oach en ails,
in ou speci ic case analysis, inding ou why i ms wi h
mode n and socioeconomic app oaches (bene i s app oach)
a e dis inc om i ms wi h classic and philan h opic
iews (cos s app oach). We iden i y one essen ial SEW
dimension he e o dis inguish he cos s e sus bene i s
CSR app oaches: image and epu a ion as he ue mo o
o encou aging social ies.
Among FFs wi h a bene i s app oach, i ms displaying
a mode n ision show a special commi men o hei
immedia e en i onmen , especially wi h ega d o local
and egional supplie s. They also place emphasis on hei
in ol emen wi h socie y in gene al. These i ms wan o
p ese e hei SEW and belie e ha being mo e esponsi-
ble and mee ing s akeholde s’ equi emen s will p o ec
Diéguez-So o e al. 459
hei image and epu a ion. Bu hey also say hey a e
awa e ha hese CSR policies may ha e a di ec impac on
he income s a emen . Ce ainly, hei commi men o
p io i izing he local o egional economy may lead hese
i ms o making decisions ha in ol e a highe ini ial cos .
Howe e , hey a e con inced ha hese ac ions will ul i-
ma ely esul in a ne bene i o he i m.
We mus suppo ou ci y, ou oo s and adi ions . . . we ha e
supplie s om he same egion, because we op o local
p oduc s, because he locals a e also ou cus ome s, and hey
know wha we do o he ci y. (J)
“E en hough ou business is mainly in expo s, we a e e y
well-known in ou own ci y; we pa icipa e in many social
ac i i ies and ou supplie s a e local oo ( o he ex en
possible)” (I). The e o e, hese i ms p omo e social ies o
ob ain a bene i in he medium and long e m. “Using local
supplie s is impo an , e en i his implies a educ ion in
p o i s. Howe e , his commi men o he egion also ep e-
sen s an ad an age ha we al eady pe cei e” (A). Likewise,
hey a e con inced ha he esponsible ea men o employees
is likely o esul in SEW bene i s o he amily.
This is a male-domina ed sec o and he e is only one woman
in he Adminis a ion depa men . . ., and he daugh e is he
one who se s he i m’s wo king hou s. She chooses he
holidays i s and nobody ques ions i . I we collabo a e wi h
he on amily s abili y, he wo k goes much smoo he . . .
hanks o he amily, she knows how o manage con lic s and
esou ces be e . (A)
In sho , hese i ms will add ess CSR ac ions wi h bo h
in e nal and ex e nal s akeholde s because hey a e con-
inced ha only by being socially esponsible wi h bo h
g oups will hey imp o e hei image and epu a ion. They
a e awa e ha image and epu a ion can be a nished by
i esponsible beha io owa d ei he ex e nal o in e nal
s akeholde s. The e o e, hese i ms will ca y ou hese
CSR ini ia i es suppo ed by ins umen al mo i es as a
means o se ing he amily’s in e es s in e ms o SEW.
Fo i s pa , i ms wi h a bene i s app oach showing a
socioeconomic ocus only pe o m social ac ions as pa o
he sea ch o a inancial e u n: “Rela ionships wi h
supplie s and cus ome s a e a p io i y o he i m” (B).
Howe e , close o quasi- amily ela ionships wi h employees
a e no encou aged:
The employees’ p io i ies a e simila o my a he ’s p io i ies,
namely heal hy wo king condi ions, ime lexibili y, . . . We
know ha hese equi emen s ha e nega i e consequences o
ou income s a emen and we a e no willing o main ain my
a he ’s wo king condi ions. (B)
Thus, his i m is seemingly able o be, a he same ime,
socially esponsible wi h ex e nal s akeholde s and socially
i esponsible wi h in e nal s akeholde s.
I can exp ess my opinion abou decision making o my a he
. . ., bu he is he decision make . . . . we ha e he same opinion
ega ding majo concep . Fo example, we do no was e ou
ime and esou ces on CSR social ac ions . . . we pa icipa ed
once in social ac i i ies in he ci y, bu basically i was o
ob ain good publici y o he i m. (F)
Thus, i m (F) sees CSR ac ions as a ma ke ing ins umen
ha is o e ed o s akeholde s o simul aneously achie e
he i m’s economic goals and mee he needs o hese
g oups. Thus, he sel ish beha io o FFs amed in he
socioeconomic app oach is b ough o ligh when he FF,
speci ically wo ied abou i s image and epu a ion, only
op s o CSR ac ions ha a e mo e bene icial o he equi e-
men s o ex e nal a he han in e nal s akeholde s.
Howe e , in he i ms amed wi hin a cos s app oach
and exhibi ing a philan h opic ision, we ha e obse ed
ha he CSR policies ha c ea e and s eng hen social ies
a e no made o ob ain a medium and/o long- e m eco-
nomic compensa ion. Ra he , hey a e a consequence o
he objec i es and alues o he amily. They conse e and
imp o e hei non- inancial p e e ences and SEW and
make hem mo e likely o engage in social ac i i ies and
also show a since e and solid pe sonal esponsibili y
owa d hei employees. The objec i e o being in eg a ed
in o he local communi y, by p inciples, legacy, and amily
adi ion, ha is he main de e minan o he ca ying ou
speci ic CSR ac ions, ega dless o he economic e u n.
“Fo us he ecogni ion by socie y, by ou communi y is
e e y hing . . . he i m pe o ms many social ac ions, bu
we we e no awa e o i un il you explained i ” (H). “The e
is a e y close ela ionship wi h ou cus ome s. Many
s a ed wi h my a he . The e is a ela ionship o iend-
ship, no s ic ly wo k” (C). Hence, CSR engagemen
bene i ing s akeholde s gene a es p ide and a sense o
well-being, which in u n c ea es a u he commi men o
philan h opy and communi y de elopmen , imp o ing
i m epu a ion. Fi m “M,” o ins ance, does i s business
a om he ci y whe e he i m’s headqua e s is loca ed.
I eally only has a wa ehouse and logis ics a i s headqua -
e s, bu supplie s, manu ac u ing, and sales a e all ou side
he ci y. This means ha hey only ecei e a minimal eco-
nomic compensa ion om wha hey o en do o he ci y.
The i m’s epu a ion in he ci y is lawless.
People know ha we coope a e wi h many ounda ions
(Ca i as, Red Mad e, and AECC, o example) and pa icipa e
in many social ac i i ies (helping la ge amilies and wo king
o p e en social exclusion) in ou own ci y . . . We make an
impo an in es men in aining, sending ou employees o
managemen p og ams in business schools e e y yea , bu ou
business is ab oad. (M)
Consequen ly, hey a e willing o make dona ions, e en i
hey a e pe cei ed as a ne cos o he i m. Hence, i ms
which ha e a philan h opic ou look seem o be willing o
bind social ies h ough CSR ac ions al uis ically. These
460 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
i ms will engage in CSR ac ions due o non-ins umen al
mo i es— hey jus belie e hei conduc is “basically
good and e hically igh ,” ega dless o whe he i esul s
in epu a ional gains o no .
Finally, i ms classi ied as showing a cos app oach bu
ca ego ized unde he classic ision ecognize “ha ing no
commi men o socie y” (G), “no ha ing social oo s” (D).
Thus, o pu ely economic easons, his ype o i m nei-
he has no in ends o ha e social ies. “We do no was e
ou ime and esou ces on CSR social ac ions” (F). These
i ms conside ha social implica ion gene a es a ne cos
and no eal bene i s.
We do no pa icipa e in any kind o e en s linked o he ci y,
nei he social no cha i able . . . Ou objec i es a e pu ely
sho - e m and economic; in ac , we a e leade s in ou sec o
because we ha e he lowes p ices. (G)
The e o e, hese i ms a e no willing o engage in any ype
o CSR wi h s akeholde s because o hem he image and
epu a ion dimension ha dly ma e s.
In sho , wha dis inguishes i ms which place di e en
emphasis on he cos s e sus bene i s o CSR is whe he
he image and epu a ion dimension is ac ually alued and
whe he his dimension, as he ue engine o encou aging
social ies, is ins umen al o no . Consequen ly, we p o-
pose he ollowing:
P oposi ion 3: I FFs a e adop ing CSR ac ions wi h
s akeholde s due o ins umen al use o image and epu-
a ion dimension, he likelihood o ha ing a bene i s
ision o CSR will be highe .
To help in e p e he se e al concep s and hei ela ion-
ships in ou da a, we buil Table 5 and Figu e 1, which
summa ize and gene alize ou main indings, g aphically
showing he p oposi ions made du ing ou s udy.
Conclusion, implica ions, limi a ions,
and u u e esea ch
Conside ing he inc easing a en ion ha amily schola s
a e paying o CSR, he lack o consensus ega ding whe he
FFs a e mo e o less socially esponsible (C uz e al.,
2014), and he absence o a comp ehensi e o e iew o
how and why di e en dimensions o amily he e ogenei y
may a ec FF beha io and s a egic choices (Jaskiewicz
& Dye , 2017), namely CSR, his a icle in es iga es he
di e ences in CSR app oaches be ween FFs depending on
he impo ance assigned o hei SEW dimensions.
D awing on an SEW pe spec i e and using an explo a o y
mul iple case s udy as an empi ical esea ch s a egy, he
a icle inds ha FFs can a y om one ano he wi h
ega d o CSR app oaches depending on how hey pe -
cei e he dis inc dimensions o SEW.
Ou esul s indica e ha he amily con inui y SEW
dimension, which usually includes amily con ol and
enewal o amily bonds, does no show whe he an FF
will adop a speci ic CSR app oach. As hey a e p esen in
e e y FF, hese do no allow us o de ine di e ences
be ween FFs wi h ega d o he CSR app oach aken. Ye ,
he analysis o he in e iewees’ s a emen s showed ha
he e a e some p ominen SEW dimensions (Be one e al.,
2012) explaining he he e ogenei y o FFs ega ding CSR
app oach: iden i ica ion, emo ional a achmen , amily
en ichmen , and image and epu a ion as he main d i e o
binding social ies. We con i m ha he he e ogenei y o
FFs as ega ds hei CSR app oach is likely o appea om
dissimila i ies among hese o me dimensions. The
impo ance assigned o hese no ewo hy dimensions is no
assumed o be simila o e e y FF, which makes i possi-
ble o obse able dis inc ions o appea in FFs.
We p opose ha FFs adop ing a b oad ision o CSR
show a high le el o iden i ica ion, while FFs wi h a na ow
ision o CSR demons a e a low le el o iden i ica ion.
Table 5. SEW dimensions, CSR app oach, and p oposi ions.
SEW dimension Vision
B oad Na ow
Mode n Philan h opic Classic Socioeconomic
Iden i ica ion (P oposi ion 1) High le el High le el Low le el Low le el
Emo ional a achmen and amily
en ichmen (P oposi ion 2)
1s g oup. Non-p o essionalized i ms:
B igh side > Da k side
B igh side < Da k
side
B igh
side < Da k side
2nd g oup. P o essionalized i ms:
B igh side > Da k side
Bene i s Cos s
Mode n Socioeconomic Classic Philan h opic
Image and epu a ion, as engine
o social ies (P oposi ion 3)
T. Ins . P. Ins . Non. Ins .
Non. Al .
Non. Ins .
Al .
SEW: socio-emo ional weal h; T. Ins .: o ally ins umen al; P. Ins .: pa ially ins umen al; Non. Ins ., Al .: non-ins umen al, al uis ic; Non. Ins .,
Non. Al .: Non-ins umen al, Non-al uis ic; CSR: co po a e social esponsibili y.
Diéguez-So o e al. 461
FFs wi h a high deg ee o iden i ica ion see he i m as a
e lec ion o hei sel -es eem, sel -wo h, and he pa a-
moun alues o he amily (Wes head e al., 2001).
Likewise, FFs in e mingle emo ional, sen imen al, and
i m ac o s, hus impac ing he FF’s decision-making p o-
cess (Ba on, 2008), including ha o CSR beha io . We
p opose dis inguishing wo g oups wi hin FFs, based on
he impo ance assigned o emo ional a achmen and
amily en ichmen o CSR engagemen . In he i s g oup,
he posi i e side o al uis ic emo ions and sen imen s is
dominan (Cennamo e al., 2012), o e coming hei mo e
nega i e side, and his explains hei g ea endency o
engage in in e nal and ex e nal CSR ac ions (b oad
app oach). Mo eo e , we sugges ha al hough he b igh
side o emo ions and amily ha mony ou shines hei da k
side, hese i ms aspi e o be mo e p o essionalized o min-
imize he e ec s o hei da k side (Schulze e al., 2003).
The second g oup appea s o be nega i ely alenced, wi h
he de imen al consequences o emo ional a achmen and
amily en ichmen being mo e p e alen han hei posi i e
e ec s in e ms o CSR.
We also sugges ha image and epu a ion, as he main
unde lying dimension p omo ing social ies, a e he key
SEW dimensions o di e en ia e be ween FFs ha iew
social in ol emen as a cos disad an age om FFs ha
pe cei e social esponsibili y as a sou ce o compe i i e
ad an age. FFs’ social ela ionships imply collec i e social
capi al, ela ional us , and ecip oci y (Ganong e al.,
1990) along wi h pe cep ions o p oximi y and in e pe -
sonal coope a ion (Uzzi, 1997). Thus, FFs wi h a bene i s
app oach will engende s ong ecip ocal bonds wi h hei
s akeholde s and he communi y (Be one e al., 2012),
being conside ed excellen co po a e ci izens, o eally
p opel hei image and epu a ion (Lyman, 1991). Some o
hese FFs beha e esponsibly owa d ex e nal and in e nal
s akeholde s because hey a e con inced ha any i espon-
sibili y wi h bo h ypes o s akeholde s will a nish he
epu a ion o he i m and he amily (mode n). By con-
as , o he s will adop an unequal conduc , esponding o
he needs o ex e nal s akeholde s and disc imina ing
agains in e nal ones (socioeconomic). The e a e FFs wi h
a cos s app oach, ei he because hey a e no mo i a ed o
os e social ies ha boos he image o epu a ion dimen-
sion, conside ing hem as a was e o ime (classic), o
because hey a e willing o imp o e CSR beha io e en
when i migh imply a ne cos o he i m, pu suing he
well-being o hose a ound hem al hough he e is no eco-
nomic bene i o be de i ed om his beha io , and hus
showing hei au hen ic conce n o he b oade social
good (philan h opic) (B ickson, 2007; Zien a a, 2017).
Figu e 1. FIBER dimensions de e mining app oaches o co po a e social esponsibili y.
Adap ed om Quazi and O’B ien (2000).
462 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
Ou p oposi ions a e aligned wi h he p oposals o
Cennamo e al. (2012), which claimed ha FFs adop ing
iden i ica ion, he binding o social ies and/o emo ional
a achmen as he main ames o e e ence we e mo e
likely o p oac i ely in ol e s akeholde s, his being
oo ed in no ma i e mo i es. They a e also in line wi h he
indings o Swab e al. (2020), who p oposed ecen ly ha
he dimensions o he SEW cons uc a y in e ms o
necessi y and su iciency. They sugges ha he amily
con inui y dimension alone does no imply ha FFs show
he willingness among he main decision make s o pu sue
SEW, being a necessa y bu no su icien condi ion o
SEW. Apa om ha , iden i ica ion, social bonds, and
emo ional dimensions a e necessa y bu no su icien con-
di ions o SEW and ep esen he willingness o pu sue
SEW. We ex end hese o me s udies con i ming ha he
co ne s one o FF he e ogenei y in e ms o CSR app oach
lies in he iden i ica ion, emo ion, en ichmen , and image
and epu a ion (as he basic explana ion o social ies)
dimensions. Likewise, ou p oposi ions a e in line wi h he
esul s o Ma ques e al. (2014), who con i med he impo -
ance o iden i ica ion, binding social ies, and emo ional
a achmen o he wo kplace and communi y in CSR. We
expanded on hei indings, examining he CSR app oach
ins ead o CSR engagemen and b oadening ou SEW
amewo k beyond he FIBER scale. Howe e , ou p opo-
si ions do no seem o ag ee wi h he indings o Dick e al.
(2020), which sugges ed ha he amily con ol dimension
o SEW p e ails o e epu a ional conce ns when shaping
CSR engagemen . Ne e heless, hey we e mainly ocused
on CSR engagemen ha in ol es high epu a ional bene-
i s and ha may jeopa dize amily con ol, dis ega ding
o he possible in luen ial SEW dimensions, such as emo-
ional a achmen o amily en ichmen , which ou s udy
has cap u ed.
Ou s udy con ibu es o he p e ious esea ch in some
impo an ways. Whe eas p io e idence ega ding he CSR
o FFs has shown hei he e ogenei y ega ding CSR o ien-
a ion (Déniz & Cab e a, 2005), ou s udy is one o he i s
o analyze his dissimila i y using SEW as a basis. The
explo a ion o he ela ionship be ween SEW dimensions
and CSR app oach is comple ely new in he li e a u e.
Ou indings e eal ha FFs do no cons i u e a homo-
geneous g oup wi h ega d o CSR app oach due o e e y
FF being able o choose di e en SEW dimensions, indi-
idually o combined, as hei key e e ence poin s.
Speci ically, we main ain ha , while he amily con inui y
dimension will mani es in e e y FF, he c ux o amily
he e ogenei y ega ding CSR app oach lies in he iden i i-
ca ion, emo ion, en ichmen , and image and epu a ion
dimensions. We also con end ha FFs’ CSR app oach is
explained no only by he impo ance o bo h he b igh
and he da k sides o iden i ica ion, emo ion, and en ich-
men bu also by he ins umen al use o non-ins umen al
use o image and epu a ion when add essing CSR
engagemen . Ou s udy challenges, as Zien a a (2017) did,
he unde lying assump ion dominan in p io esea ch, ha
SEW is always “a p osocial and posi i e s imulus”
(Kelle manns e al., 2012, p. 1176). Speci ically, his a i-
cle a gues ha emo ional a achmen and amily en ich-
men dimension may be double- alenced, a d i e o CSR
engagemen bu also a cause o i esponsible p ac ices.
Likewise, he o iginali y o his s udy also lies in ha i
allows o cla i ica ion as o whe he and how a pa icula
dimension o SEW is d i ing CSR engagemen . Ou s udy
highligh s ha when analyzing he e ec o SEW on CSR
app oach o FFs, we should be speci ic abou whe he i is,
o ins ance, he in luence o a amily en ichmen conce n
o a epu a ional issue on CSR app oach ha is being ana-
lyzed, a he han jus simply es ablishing he impac o
SEW. Fu he mo e, ou quali a i e me hodological
app oach allowed us o iden i y and wo k wi h SEW
dimensions included in di e en SEW amewo ks, such
as he FIBER o he SEW scale, and e en ecognize he
unde lying SEW dimension explaining social ies, namely
image and epu a ion. Finally, o p o ec agains SEW
ei ica ion (Jiang e al., 2018), his s udy allows us o
unde s and how amily membe s eally hink, eel, and
beha e in SEW phenomena (Schulze & Kelle manns,
2015). Pa icula ly, and using a quali a i e/in e p e a i e
me hodology, we we e able o cap u e SEW dimensions
p ope ly, which allows us o ha e a comp ehensi e
o e iew ha akes in o accoun he impac o all SEW
dimensions on he CSR app oach. This is a eal con ibu ion
o he p e ious li e a u e on SEW, in which a di ec
measu emen o SEW phenomena has been p ac ically
non-exis en and cons uc s a e jus beginning o ake o m
(Debicki e al., 2016; Hauck e al., 2016; Ma ques e al.,
2014; Mu phy e al., 2019; Schepe s e al., 2014).
Ou s udy also has s ong implica ions o esea ch and
p ac ice. Fi s , academics s udying FFs ha e only jus
s a ed o in es iga e why FFs a e di e en om each o he
ega ding hei CSR engagemen (Van Gils e al., 2014) and
e y ecen ly o esea ch he ole o SEW in his phenome-
non (Dick e al., 2020; Ma ques e al., 2014). This s udy
p o ides e idence o FF he e ogenei y in e ms o CSR
app oach and ou indings ad ance ou unde s anding o
how hese di e ences may be explained by how FFs
manage ce ain SEW dimensions. Ou indings also appea
o sugges ha SEW dimensions a e dual- ace ed, and
he e o e inancial and non- inancial aims need no be
opposed bu hey can also complemen and e en s eng hen
each o he ecip ocally. The e o e, CSR and FF schola s
could bene i om heo e ically and empi ically conside -
ing how SEW dimensions could in luence a CSR app oach.
Second, he indings o ou s udy could also be use ul o FF
consul an s and manage s, pa icula ly hose wo king in
CSR. These indi iduals a e encou aged o no assume ha
all FFs mus uni o mly adop he same CSR app oach—by
ein o cing ce ain SEW dimensions hey could con ibu e

Diéguez-So o e al. 463
o be e CSR beha io and esul s. Fo ins ance, by
s eng hening iden i ica ion, making he posi i e side o
amily emo ions and en ichmen g ea e han he nega i e
side, and adop ing an ins umen al pe spec i e wi h
s akeholde s, FFs will be mo e likely o display a mode n
app oach o CSR, and his in u n will esul in epu a ional
gains, highe o ganiza ional commi men , and a ac ing
be e job applican s and cus ome s, among o he ou comes.
Thus, p ac i ione s and manage s should encou age i ms
o mo e om one app oach o ano he while knowing
which SEW dimension is likely o enhance CSR beha io .
Fu he mo e, FF schola s and p ac i ione s should no be
emp ed o label an FF as socially esponsible by looking
only a how i beha es in ce ain CSR ac ions o acco ding
o i s pa icipa ion in ce i ica ion schemes. Ins ead, hey
should analyze he CSR app oach i akes o ully unde -
s and hei beha io and he ul ima e a ionale behind i .
Finally, policy make s could de elop sui able incen i e
policies o os e CSR i hey knew wha pa icula CSR
app oach each FF is displaying cu en ly and could in i e
FFs o de elop hose speci ic SEW key dimensions ha
lead o supe io CSR p ac ices and pe o mance.
Finally, his s udy is no ee o limi a ions, and ecommen-
da ions o u u e esea ch may be p oposed. Fi s , ou
p oposi ions a e consis en wi h p io esea ch showing he
he e ogeneous beha io o FFs ega ding CSR (Campopiano
& De Massis, 2015; Déniz & Cab e a, 2005). The explo a-
ion o he SEW dimensions and hei associa ion wi h CSR
app oaches is new in FF and CSR esea ch. Empi ically
es ing he connec ion be ween he di e en dimensions o
SEW and CSR app oaches migh allow schola s o open
addi ional lines o u u e esea ch. Fo ins ance, quan i a-
i ely demons a ing which SEW dimension(s) is/a e pa a-
moun o explaining he CSR app oach could be a special
a ea o in e es . Fu u e esea ch could also empi ically
in es iga e o wha ex en he mixed impo ance o he a i-
ous iden i ied dimensions d i es FF beha io di e en ly in
e ms o CSR app oach. Second, ou indings should no be
ex apola ed o any popula ions o i ms, as ou s udy is
explo a o y. Ye , his s udy, aking ad an age o he alua-
ble in o ma ion gleaned om case s udies, could explo e
ho oughly how and why FFs adop a speci ic CSR
app oach, and we hope ha ou p oposi ions will inspi e FF
and CSR esea che s o analyze whe he ou esul s may be
applicable. We ha e add essed FF he e ogenei y conside ing
SEW dimensions. Howe e , he e a e o he sou ces o
he e ogenei y ha may impac CSR app oaches and ha
u u e esea ch may examine, such as amily s uc u es,
unc ions, in e ac ions, o e en s (Jaskiewicz & Dye ,
2017). Thi d, all he FFs app oached decided o ake pa in
his esea ch p ojec , which could indica e a po en ial bias
in he sample selec ion. Howe e , he in-dep h explo a ion
o he CSR app oaches con i med ha we ob ained ep e-
sen a i es o e e y app oach in ou sample o FFs. This
esul diminished ou conce ns ega ding selec ion bias.
Fou h, o explo e SEW in FFs, he indi idual amily
membe is o en con empla ed as he sui able uni o
examina ion (Be one e al., 2012), as we ha e conside ed.
Ye , ounde SEW, amily SEW, and i m SEW may be
concep ualized and collec ed di e en ly (B igham &
Payne, 2019). Fu u e esea ch could analyze his in dep h,
as each way o measu ing SEW may make a pa icula con-
ibu ion o he decisions ela ed o he CSR app oach
aken. Finally, Mu phy e al. (2019) ha e ecen ly s udied
how SEW o igina es, de elops, and impac s he li e and
decisions o FFs. Fu u e esea ch may s udy how and why
di e en SEW e olu ion in FFs can push hem o change
om one CSR app oach o ano he . In sho , we sugges
ha u u e esea ch analyzes how SEW changes o e he
li e cycle o FFs a ec CSR app oach.
Decla a ion o con lic ing in e es s
The au ho (s) decla ed no po en ial con lic s o in e es wi h
espec o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his
a icle.
Funding
The au ho (s) disclosed eceip o he ollowing inancial sup-
po o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his
a icle: Au ho s wan o acknowledge he unding ecei ed by
he Fi m Feasabili y Chai a he Uni e si y o Malaga, in he
o m o esea ch und o hi ing Ma a Campos-Valenzuela
o se e al mon hs, o de elop Chai ac ions, and he eby, his
pape .
ORCID iD
Julio Diéguez-So o h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5116-5604
Re e ences
Ali, A., Chen, T. Y., & Radhak ishnan, S. (2007). Co po a e
disclosu es by amily i ms. Jou nal o Accoun ing and
Economics, 44(1–2), 238–286.
A agón, C., A edondo, A. M., & I u ioz, C. (2019). How can
esponsible amily owne ship be sus ained ac oss gene a-
ions? A amily social capi al app oach. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 159(1), 161–185.
A agón, C., & I u ioz, C. (2016). Responsible amily owne ship
in small- and medium-sized amily en e p ises: An explo a-
o y s udy. Business E hics: A Eu opean Re iew, 25(1),
75–93.
A agón, J. A., & Sha ma, S. (2003). A con ingen esou ce-
based iew o p oac i e co po a e en i onmen al s a egy.
Academy o Managemen Re iew, 28(1), 71–88.
A egle, J. L., Hi , M. A., Si mon, D. G., & Ve y, P. (2007). The
de elopmen o o ganiza ional social capi al: A ibu es o
amily i ms. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 44(1), 73–95.
Ban ield, E. C. (1958). The mo al basis o a backwa d socie y.
F ee P ess.
Ba on, R. A. (2008). The ole o a ec in he en ep eneu ial p o-
cess. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 33(2), 328–340.
Benbasa , I., Golds ein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case
esea ch s a egy in s udies o in o ma ion sys ems. MIS
Qua e ly, 11(3), 369–386.
464 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
Be one, P., C uz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (2012).
Socioemo ional weal h in amily i ms: Theo e ical dimen-
sions, assessmen app oaches, and agenda o u u e
esea ch. Family Business Re iew, 25(3), 258–279.
Be one, P., C uz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & La aza-Kin ana,
M. (2010). Socioemo ional weal h and co po a e esponses
o ins i u ional p essu es: Do amily-con olled i ms pol-
lu e less? Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 55(1), 82–113.
Bingham, J. B., Dye , W. G., Smi h, I., & Adams, G. L. (2011). A
s akeholde iden i y o ien a ion app oach o co po a e social
pe o mance in amily i ms. Jou nal o Business E hics,
99(4), 565–585.
Block, J. H., & Wagne , M. (2014). The e ec o amily owne -
ship on di e en dimensions o co po a e social esponsibil-
i y: E idence om la ge US i ms. Business S a egy and
he En i onmen , 23(7), 475–492.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social esponsibili ies o he businessman.
Ha pe & Row.
B ickson, S. L. (2007). O ganiza ional iden i y o ien a ion: The
genesis o he ole o he i m and dis inc o ms o social
alue. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 32(3), 864–888.
B igham, K. H., & Payne, G. T. (2019). Socioemo ional weal h
(SEW): Ques ions on cons uc alidi y. Family Business
Re iew, 32(4), 326–329.
B own, T. J., Dacin, P. A., P a , M. G., & Whe en, D. A. (2006).
Iden i y, in ended image, cons ued image, and epu a ion:
An in e disciplina y amewo k and sugges ed e minology.
Jou nal o he Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 34(2), 99–106.
Cab e a, M. K., Déniz, M. C., & San ana, D. J. (2005). Co po a e
social esponsibili y and amily business. Re is a Eu opea
de Di ección y Economía de la Emp esa, 14(4), 43–58.
Campopiano, G., & De Massis, A. (2015). Co po a e social espon-
sibili y epo ing: A con en analysis in amily and non- am-
ily i ms. Jou nal o Business E hics, 129(3), 511–534.
Ca ney, M. (2005). Co po a e go e nance and compe i i e
ad an age in amily-con olled i ms. En ep eneu ship
Theo y and P ac ice, 29(3), 249–265.
Ca oll, A. B. (1979). A h ee-dimensional concep ual model o
co po a e pe o mance. Academy o Managemen Re iew,
4(4), 497–505.
Cennamo, C., Be one, P., C uz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R.
(2012). Socioemo ional weal h and p oac i e s akeholde
engagemen : Why amily-con olled i ms ca e mo e abou
hei s akeholde s. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice,
36(6), 1153–1173.
Cha maz, K. (1996). The sea ch o meanings-g: Rounded he-
o y. In J. A. Smi h, R. Ha é, & L. Van Langenho e (Eds.),
Re hinking me hods in psychology (pp. 27–49). SAGE.
Ch isman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pea son, A. W., & Ba ne , T. (2012).
Family in ol emen , amily in luence, and amily-cen e ed
non-economic goals in small i ms. En ep eneu ship
Theo y and P ac ice, 36(2), 267–293.
Ch isman, J. J., & Pa el, P. C. (2012). Va ia ions in R&D
in es men s o amily and non amily i ms: Beha iou al
agency and myopic loss a e sion pe spec i es. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 55(4), 976–997.
Co be a, G., & Sal a o, C. (2004). Sel -se ing o sel -ac ual-
izing? Models o man and agency cos s in di e en ypes
o amily i ms: A commen a y on “Compa ing he agency
cos s o amily and non- amily i ms: Concep ual issues
and explo a o y e idence.” En ep eneu ship Theo y and
P ac ice, 28(4), 355–362.
C uz, C., La aza-Kin ana, M., Ga cés-Galdeano, L., & Be one,
P. (2014). A e amily i ms eally mo e socially esponsible?
En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 38(6), 1295–1316.
Dahls ud, A. (2008). How co po a e social esponsibili y is
de ined: An analysis o 37 de ini ions. Co po a e Social
Responsibili y and En i onmen al Managemen , 15(1),
1–13.
Debicki, B. J., Kelle manns, F. W., Ch isman, J. J., Pea son, A.
W., & Spence , B. A. (2016). De elopmen o a socioe-
mo ional weal h impo ance (SEWi) scale o amily i m
esea ch. Jou nal o Family Business S a egy, 7(1), 47–57.
Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do amily i ms ha e
be e epu a ions han non- amily i ms? An in eg a ion o
socioemo ional weal h and social iden i y heo ies. Jou nal
o Managemen S udies, 50(3), 337–360.
De Massis, A., F a ini, F., Pizzu no, E., & Cassia, L. (2015).
P oduc inno a ion in amily e sus non amily i ms:
An explo a o y analysis. Jou nal o Small Business
Managemen , 53(1), 1–36.
De Massis, A., & Ko la , J. (2014). The case s udy me hod in
amily business esea ch: Guidelines o quali a i e schola -
ship. Jou nal o Family Business S a egy, 5(1), 15–29.
Déniz, M. C., & Cab e a, M. K. (2005). Co po a e social espon-
sibili y and amily business in Spain. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 56(1), 27–41.
Dick, M., Wagne , E., & Pe sns eine , H. (2020). Founde -
con olled amily i ms, o e con idence, and co po a e
social esponsibili y engagemen : E idence om su ey
da a. Family Business Re iew, 34, 71–92.
Ding, S., & Wu, Z. (2014). Family owne ship and co po a e
misconduc in U.S. small i ms. Jou nal o Business E hics,
123(2), 183–195.
Dye , W. G., & Whe en, D. A. (2006). Family i ms and social
esponsibili y: P elimina y e idence om he S&P 500.
En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 30(6), 785–802.
Eisenha d , K. M. (1989a). Agency heo y: An assessmen and
e iew. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 14(1), 57–74.
Eisenha d , K. M. (1989b). Building heo ies om case s udy
esea ch. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 14(4), 532–
550.
Eisenha d , K. M. (1991). Be e s o ies and be e cons uc s:
The case o igo and compa a i e logic. Academy o
Managemen Re iew, 16(3), 620–627.
Eisenha d , K. M., & G aebne , M. E. (2007). Theo y build-
ing om cases: Oppo uni ies and challenges. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 50(1), 25–32.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Wang, H., & Kwok, C. C. Y. (2016).
Family con ol and co po a e social esponsibili y. Jou nal
o Banking and Finance, 73, 131–146.
Eu opean Commission. (2001). G een pape : P omo ing a
Eu opean amewo k o co po a e social esponsibili y.
Family Fi m Ins i u e. (2017, No embe ). Global da a poin s.
h p://www. i.o g
Galla do, D., Sánchez, M. I., & Co chuelo, M. B. (2013).
Valida ion o a measu emen scale o he ela ionship
be ween he o ien a ion o co po a e social esponsibili y and
Diéguez-So o e al. 465
o he business s a egic a iables. Re is a de Con abilidad-
Spanish Accoun ing Re iew 1, 11–23.
Gallo, M. A., Tapies, J., & Cappuyns, K. (2004). Compa ison o
amily and non amily business: Financial logic and pe sonal
p e e ences. Family Business Re iew, 17(4), 303–318.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Mapes, D. (1990). A me a-
analy ic e iew o amily s uc u e s e eo ypes. Jou nal o
Ma iage and Family, 52(2), 287–297.
Gioia, D. A., Co ley, K. G., & Hamil on, A. L. (2012). Seeking
quali a i e igo in induc i e esea ch: No es on he Gioia
me hodology. O ganiza ional Resea ch Me hods, 16(1),
15–31.
Glase , B. G. (1978). Theo e ical sensi i i y: Ad ances in he
me hodology o g ounded heo y. Sociology P ess.
God ey, P. C., Me ill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The ela-
ionship be ween co po a e social esponsibili y and sha e-
holde alue: An empi ical es o he isk managemen
hypo hesis. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 30(4), 425–445.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., C uz, C., Be one, P., & De Cas o, J.
(2011). The bind ha ies: Socioemo ional weal h p ese a-
ion in amily i ms. Academy o Managemen Annals, 5(1),
653–707.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez, M., Jacobson, K. J.,
& Moyano, J. (2007). Socioemo ional weal h and business
isks in amily-con olled i ms: E idence om Spanish oli e
oil mills. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 52(1), 106–137.
Go don, G., & Nicholson, N. (2008). Family wa s: Classic con-
lic s in amily business and how o deal wi h hem. Kogan
Page.
G aebne , M. E., Ma in, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. (2012).
Quali a i e da a: Cooking wi hou a ecipe. S a egic
O ganiza ion, 10(3), 276–284.
Hauck, J., Suess, J., Beck, S., P ügl, R., & F ank, H. (2016).
Measu ing socioemo ional weal h in amily-owned and
-managed i ms: A alida ion and sho o m o he
FIBER scale. Jou nal o Family Business S a egy, 7(3),
133–148.
Haynes, K. T., Hi , M. A., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). The da k
side o leade ship: Towa ds a mid- ange heo y o hub is and
g eed in en ep eneu ial con ex s. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies, 52(4), 479–505.
He nández, M. A., Mendoza, J., & Salaza , B. C. (2017). Social
esponsibili y in he amily company. Holos, 5, 174–185.
Huang, Y. C., Ding, H. B., & Kao, M. R. (2009). Salien s ake-
holde oices: Family business and g een inno a ion adop ion.
Jou nal o Managemen & O ganiza ion, 15(3), 309–326.
Jamali, D., & Sidani, Y. (2008). Classical s. mode n manage-
ial CSR pe spec i es: Insigh s om Lebanese con ex and
c oss-cul u al implica ions. Business and Socie y Re iew,
113(3), 329–346.
Jamali, D., Zanhou , M., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Peculia
s eng hs and ela ional a ibu es o SMEs in he con ex o
CSR. Jou nal o Business E hics, 87(3), 355–377.
Jaskiewicz, P., & Dye , W. G. (2017). Add essing he elephan in he
oom: Disen angling amily he e ogenei y o ad ance amily
business esea ch. Family Business Re iew, 30(2), 111–118.
Jiang, D. S., Kelle manns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., & Mo is, M. L.
(2018). Mo e han mee s he eye: A e iew and u u e di ec-
ions o he social psychology o socioemo ional weal h.
Family Business Re iew, 31(1), 125–157.
Kelle manns, F. W., Eddles on, K. A., & Zellwege , T. M. (2012).
Ex ending he socioemo ional weal h pe spec i e: A look a
he da k side. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 36(6),
1175–1182.
Kidwell, R. E., Kelle manns, F. W., & Eddles on, K. A. (2012).
Ha mony, jus ice, con usion, and con lic in amily i ms:
Implica ions o e hical clima e and he “ edo e ec .”
Jou nal o Business E hics, 106(4), 503–517.
Lamb, N. H., Bu le , F., & Roundy, P. (2017). Family i ms
and co po a e social esponsibili y: Explo ing “conce ns.”
Jou nal o S a egy and Managemen , 10(4), 469–487.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Na u alis ic inqui y.
SAGE.
Li z, R. A., & S ewa , A. C. (2000). Cha i y begins a home:
Family i ms and pa e ns o communi y in ol emen .
Nonp o i and Volun a y Sec o Qua e ly, 29(1), 131–
148.
Lyman, A. R. (1991). Cus ome se ice: Does amily owne ship
make a di e ence? Family Business Re iew, 4(3), 303–324.
Mah o, R. V., Da is, P. S., Pea ce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B.
(2010). Sa is ac ion wi h i m pe o mance in amily busi-
nesses. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 34(5), 985–
1001.
Ma ques, P., P esas, P., & Simon, A. (2014). The he e ogene-
i y o amily i ms in CSR engagemen : The ole o alues.
Family Business Re iew, 27(3), 206–227.
Ma ewijk, M. V. (2003). Concep s and de ini ions o CSR and
co po a e sus ainabili y: Be ween agency and communion.
Jou nal o Business E hics, 44(2–3), 95–105.
Ma in, G., Campbell, J. T., & Gómez-Mejía, L. (2016). Family
con ol, socioemo ional weal h and ea nings managemen in
publicly aded i ms. Jou nal o Business E hics, 133(3),
453–469.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Co po a e social espon-
sibili y: A heo y o he i m pe spec i e. Academy o
Managemen Re iew, 26(1), 117–127.
Mee oo, D., & Temple, B. (2003). Issues in mul i-me hod
esea ch: Cons uc ing sel -ca e. In e na ional Jou nal o
Quali a i e Me hods, 2(3), 1–12.
Melo, J. L., Gonçal es, M., de Cas o, F. C., & da Sil a, J. C. L.
(2012). Analysis o CSR in midsize e ail: Applica ion o
he Quazi and O’B ien model. Jou nal o Ope a ions and
Supply Chain Managemen , 5(2), 54–68.
Mille , D., & Le B e on-Mille , I. (2014). Decons uc ing socio-
emo ional weal h. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice,
38, 713–720.
Mi chell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Ch isman, J. J., & Spence, L. J.
(2011). Towa d a heo y o s akeholde salience in amily
i ms. Business E hics Qua e ly, 21(2), 235–255.
Mo ck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Family con ol and he en -
seeking socie y. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice,
28(4), 391–409.
Mu phy, L., Huyb ech s, J., & Lamb ech s, F. (2019). The o i-
gins and de elopmen o socioemo ional weal h wi hin
nex -gene a ion amily membe s: An in e p e i e g ounded
heo y s udy. Family Business Re iew, 32(4), 396–424.
Nag, R., Co ley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The in e sec-
ion o o ganiza ional iden i y, knowledge, and p ac ice:
A emp ing s a egic change ia knowledge g a ing.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 50(4), 821–847.
466 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(4)
Nag, R., & Gioia, D. A. (2012). F om common o uncommon
knowledge: Founda ions o i m-speci ic use o knowledge as
a esou ce. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 55(2), 421–457.
Neubaum, D. O., Dib ell, C., & C aig, J. B. (2012). Balancing
na u al en i onmen al conce ns o in e nal and ex e nal
s akeholde s in amily and non- amily businesses. Jou nal
o Family Business S a egy, 3(1), 28–37.
Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Mille , N. J. (2008). Communi y
social esponsibili y and i s consequences o amily busi-
ness pe o mance. Jou nal o Small Business Managemen ,
46(3), 331–350.
O ega, M. I., Sabo, S., A anda, P., De Zapien, J. E. G., Zapien,
A., Po illo, G. E., & Rosales, C. (2016). Ag ibusiness,
co po a e social esponsibili y, and heal h o ag icul u al
mig an wo ke s. F on ie s in Public Heal h, 4(54), 1–10.
Pa on, M. Q. (1980). Quali a i e e alua ion me hods. SAGE.
Powell, G. N., & Eddles on, K. A. (2017). Family in ol emen
in he i m, amily- o-business suppo , and en ep eneu -
ial ou comes: An explo a ion. Jou nal o Small Business
Managemen , 55(4), 614–631.
Quazi, A. M., & O’B ien, D. (2000). An empi ical es o a c oss-
na ional model o co po a e social esponsibili y. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 25(1), 33–51.
Re e e, C. (2009). De e minan s o co po a e social esponsi-
bili y disclosu e a ings by Spanish lis ed i ms. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 88(2), 351–366.
Ruesch, J., & Ba eson, G. (2017). Communica ion: The social
ma ix o psychia y. Rou ledge.
Sagede , M., Mi e , C., & Feldbaue -Du s mülle , B. (2018).
Image and epu a ion o amily i ms: A sys ema ic li e a-
u e e iew o he s a e o esea ch. Re iew o Manage ial
Science, 12(1), 335–377.
Saleem, I., Siddique, I., & Ahmed, A. (2020). An ex ension o he
socioemo ional weal h pe spec i e: Insigh s om an Asian sam-
ple. Jou nal o Family Business Managemen , 10(4), 293–312.
Schepe s, J., Voo decke s, W., S eij e s, T., & La e en, E. (2014).
The en ep eneu ial o ien a ion–pe o mance ela ionship in
p i a e amily i ms: The mode a ing ole o socio-emo ional
weal h. Small Business Economics, 43, 39–55.
Schulze, W. S., & Kelle manns, F. W. (2015). Rei ying socioe-
mo ional weal h. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice,
39(3), 447–459.
Schulze, W. S., Luba kin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Explo ing
he agency consequences o owne ship dispe sion among he
di ec o s o p i a e amily i ms. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal, 46(2), 179–194.
Schulze, W. S., Luba kin, M. H., Dino, R. N., & Buchhol z, A.
K. (2001). Agency ela ionships in amily i ms: Theo y and
e idence. O ganiza ion Science, 12(2), 99–116.
Sha ma, P., & Sha ma, S. (2011). D i e s o p oac i e en i on-
men al s a egy in amily i ms. Business E hics Qua e ly,
21(2), 309–334.
Si mon, D. G., & Hi , M. A. (2003). Managing esou ces: Linking
unique esou ces, managemen , and weal h c ea ion in
amily i ms. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 27(4),
339–358.
S auss, A., & Co bin, J. (1998). Basics o quali a i e esea ch:
Techniques and p ocedu es o de eloping g ounded he-
o y. SAGE.
Suddaby, R. (2006). F om he edi o s: Wha g ounded heo y is
no . Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 49(4), 633–642.
Swab, R. G., She lock, C., Ma kin, E., & Dib ell, C. (2020).
“SEW” Wha do we know and whe e do we go? A e iew o
socioemo ional weal h and a way o wa d. Family Business
Re iew, 33(4), 424–445.
T acy, S. J. (2010). Quali a i e quali y: Eigh “big- en ” c i e-
ia o excellen quali a i e esea ch. Quali a i e Inqui y,
16(10), 837–851.
Uhlane , L. M., an Goo -Balk, H. J. M., & Masu el, E. (2004).
Family business and co po a e social esponsibili y in a
sample o Du ch i ms. Jou nal o Small Business and
En e p ise De elopmen , 11(2), 186–194.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social s uc u e and compe i ion in in e i m
ne wo ks: The pa adox o embeddedness. Adminis a i e
Science Qua e ly, 42(1), 35–67.
Vallejo, M. C., & Langa, D. (2010). E ec s o amily socializa-
ion in he o ganiza ional commi men o he amily i ms
om he mo al economy pe spec i e. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 96(1), 49–62.
Van Gils, A., Dib ell, C., Neubaum, D. O., & C aig, J. B. (2014).
Social issues in he amily en e p ise. Family Business
Re iew, 27(3), 193–205.
Vi ije ic, S., Jano ac, T., & Neso ic, D. (2020). Implemen a ion
o wo-dimensional model o co po a e social esponsibili y
in Se bian companies. Economic Analysis, 53(1), 105–117.
Wes head, P., Cowling, M., & Howo h, C. (2001). The de el-
opmen o amily companies: Managemen and owne ship
impe a i es. Family Business Re iew, 14(4), 369–385.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case s udy esea ch: Design and me hods (3ª
Ed.). SAGE.
Zellwege , T. M., & Nason, R. S. (2008). A s akeholde pe spec-
i e on amily i m pe o mance. Family Business Re iew,
21(3), 203–216.
Zellwege , T. M., Nason, R. S., No dq is , M., & B ush, C. G.
(2013). Why do amily i ms s i e o non inancial goals?
An o ganiza ional iden i y pe spec i e. En ep eneu ship
Theo y and P ac ice, 37(2), 229–248.
Zhou, L. (2014). Social esponsibili y and employees’ o gani-
za ional iden i ica ion in Chinese amily i ms: In luence
o amily owne ship and amily commi men . Chinese
Managemen S udies, 8(4), 683–703.
Zien a a, P. (2017). Socioemo ional weal h and co po a e social
esponsibili y: A c i ical analysis. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 144(1), 185–199.