Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extending the dialogue on corporate social performance (CSP) as descriptive stakeholder management (Clarkson, Acad Manage Rev 20:92, 1995), we examine differences in CSP activity between family and nonfamily firms. We argue that CSP activity can be explained by the firm’s identity orientation toward stakeholders (Brickson, Admin Sci Quart 50:576, 2005; Acad Manage Rev 32:864, 2007). Specifically, individualistic, relational, or collectivistic identity orientations can describe a firm’s level of CSP activity toward certain stakeholders. Family firms, we suggest, adopt a more relational orientation toward their stakeholders than nonfamily firms, and thus engage in higher levels of CSP. Further, we invoke collectivistic identity orientation to argue that the higher the level of family or founder involvement within a family firm, the greater the level of CSP toward specific stakeholders. Using social performance rating data from 1991 to 2005, we find that family and nonfamily firms demonstrate notable differences in terms of social initiatives and social concerns. We also find that the level of family and founder involvement is related to the type and frequency of a family firm’s social initiatives and social concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C., Mitchell, R. K., and Wood, D. J.: 2007, ‘Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory,’ Business Ethics Quarterly 18, 153-190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., and Whetten, D. A.: 1985, ‘Organizational identity’, in B. M. Staw, and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 263-295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., and Reeb, D. M.: 2003, ‘Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500,’ The Journal of Finance 58, 1301-1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandona, A., Moreno, C. M., and Sola, J. M.: 2009, ‘Social responsibility and social security: The foundation of Caja de Pensiones para la Vejez y de Ahorros,’ Journal of Business Ethics 89, 319 – 332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, C.: 2004, ‘Self-Perpetuation Family Organization Built on Values: Necessary Condition for Long-Term Family Business Survival’, Family Business Review 17, 55-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, C., and Ward, J. B.: 1992, ‘The Critical Value of Stewardship’, Nation’s Business 80, 49-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F. A.: 1996, ‘Organizational Identity and Strategy as a Context for the Individual,’ Advances in Strategic Management 13, 19-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan, J. H., and Shanker, M. C.: 2003, ‘Family Business’ Contribution to the U.S. Economy: A Closer Look’, Family Business Review 16, 211-219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. I.: 1938, The Functions of the Executive, (Harvard, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32, 794-816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F.: 1998, ‘The Self’, in D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY), pp. 680-740).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., and Jones, T. M.: 1999, ‘Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 42, 488-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., and Gomez-Mejia, L.: 2009. ‘Environmental Performance and Executive Compensation: An Integrated Agency-Institutional Perspective’, Academy of Management Journal 52, 103-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, (Harper Row, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L.: 2005, ‘Organizational Identity Orientation: Forging a Link Between Organizational Identity and Organizations’ Relations with Stakeholders’, Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 576-609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L.: 2007, Organizational Identity Orientation: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and Distinct Forms of Social Value’, Academy of Management Review 32, 864-888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., and Bazerman, M. H.: 2003, ‘Editor’s Comments: Bringing in Consumers’, Academy of Management Review 28, 187–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Week: 2003, Family, Inc. November 10, 111–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K.: 1998, Regression Analysis of Count Data, (Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K.: 2009, Microeconometrics Using Stata (Stata Press, College Station, TX).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J. H., and Litz, R.: 2003, ‘A Unified Systems Perspective of Family Firm Performance: An Extension and Integration’, Journal of Business Venturing 18, 467-472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J, Chua J. H, and Steier, L.: 2005, ‘Sources and Consequences of Distinctive Familiness: An Introduction’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29, 237-247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., and Sharma, P.: 1999, Defining the Family Business by Behavior’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 19-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R.: 1970, The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore, (Aldine, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20, 92-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danco, L., and Ward, J. L.: 1990, ‘Beyond Success: The Continuing Contribution of the Family Foundation’, Family Business Review 3, 347-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A., Tagiuri, R.: 1989, ‘The Influence of Life-Stage on Father–Son Work Relationships in Family Companies’, Family Business Review 2, 47-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Guercio, D., Hawkins, J.: 1999, ‘The motivation and impact of pension fund activism’, Journal of Financial Economics 52, 293-340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deniz, D., and Suarez, M.K.C.: 2005, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Family Business in Spain’, Journal of Business Ethics 56(1), 59-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, M. J.: 1995, Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources, (Irwin, Burr Ridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and Preston L. E.: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20, 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., and Dukerich, J. M.: 1991, ‘Keeping an eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal 34, 517-554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., Jr.: 1986, Cultural Change in Family Firms: Anticipating and Managing Business and Family Transitions, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., Jr., and Whetten, D. A.: 2006, ‘Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 28, 391-409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., and French, K. R.: 1997, ‘Industry Costs of Equity’, Journal of Financial Economics 43, 153-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Family Business Magazine: 2003, ‘America’s 150 Largest Family Businesses’, http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/top150.html.. Retrieved 7 November 2006

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, (Pitman, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J.: 1999, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’, Academy of Management Review 24, 191-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, M. A., and Vilaseca, A.: 1996, ‘Finance in Family Business’, Family Business Review 9, 387-402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C.: 2005. ‘The Relationship Between Corporate Philanthropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 30, 777-798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Takacs-Haynes, K., Nuñez-Nickel, M., Jacobsen, K. J., and Moyano-Fuentes, J.: 2007, ‘Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-Controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills’, Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 106-137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis’, Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 53-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., and Williams, M. L.: 1999, A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms’, Family Business Review 12, 1-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., and MacMillan, I. C.: 2003, ‘A Unified Systems Perspective of Family Firm Performance’, Journal of Business Venturing 18, 451-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, E.: 2006, ‘Whose Story is it Anyway? Narrative Accounts of the Role of Women in Founding and Establishing Family Businesses’, International Small Business Journal 24(3), 253-271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H. M. and McKee, L.: 2003, ‘It′s Just Like a Family – Shared Values in the Family Firm’, Community, Work & Family 6, 141-158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., and Keim, G. D.: 2001, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the bottom line?’, Strategic Management Journal 22, 125 – 140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20, 404-437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., and Wicks, A. C.: 1999, ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory, Academy of Management Review 24, 206-221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. R.: 1977, The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroads’, Journal of Management Studies 14, 34-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KLD: 2006, KLD’s Rating Definitions. KLD Research and Analytics Report (KLD Research and Analytics, Inc. Boston, MA).

  • Lyman, A. R.: 1991. ‘Customer Service: Does Family Ownership Make a Difference?’, Family Business Review 4, 303 – 324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., and Barney, J. B.: 2007, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies’, Academy of Management Review 32, 817-835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., and Walsh, J. P.: 2003, ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., and Berman, S. L.: 2006, ‘Measurement of Corporate Social Action: Discovering Taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini Ratings Data’, Business and Society 45, 20-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, D. L., and Phillips, G. M.: 1999, ‘Founders Versus Descendants: The Profitability, Efficiency, Growth Characteristics and Financing in Large, Public, Founding-Family-Controlled Firms’, Family Business Review 12, 123-132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D.: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26, 117-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, C., Woodworth, W. W., and Dyer, W. G., Jr.: 1988, Managing By the Numbers: Absentee Ownership and the Decline of American Industry, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., and Le Breton-Miller, I.: 2003, ‘Challenge Versus Advantage in Family Business’, Strategic Organization 1, 127-134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J.: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22, 853-886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., and Yeung, B.: 2004, ‘Family Control and the Rent-Seeking Society’, Organizational Dynamics 12, 39-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nag, R., Corley, K. G., and Gioia, D. A.: 2007. ‘The Intersection of Organizational Identity, Knowledge, and Practice: Attempting Strategic Change Via Knowledge Grafting’, Academy of Management Journal 50, 821 – 847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. L.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis’, Organization Studies 24, 403-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R., Freeman R. E., and Wicks, A. C.: 2003, ‘What Stakeholder Theory is Not’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13, 479-502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G., and Foreman, P. O.: 2000, ‘Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities’, Academy of Management Review 25, 18-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, M., and Holliday, R.: 1993, ‘Relative Merits: Family Culture and Kinship in Small Firms’, Sociology 27, 629-648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., and Moldoveanu, M.: 2003, ‘When Will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest- and Identity-Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization’, Academy of Management Review 28, 204-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo. M. V., and Fouts, P. A.: 1997, ‘A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability’, Academy of Management Journal 40, 534-559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., and Blair, J. D.: 1991, ‘Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders’, Academy of Management Executive 5, 61-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H.: 1983, ‘The Role of the Founder in Creating Organization Cultures’, Organizational Dynamics 12(Summer), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., and Lane, V. R.: 2000, ‘A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational Identity’, Academy of Management Review 25, 43-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P.: 1957, Leadership in Administration, (Harper and Row, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M.: 1996, ‘The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini Social Performance Ratings Data’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 287-296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P.: 2004, ‘An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future’, Family Business Review 12, 1-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., and Chua, J. H.: 1997, ‘Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges’, Family Business Review 10, 1-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., and Hitt, M. A.: 2003, ‘Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 27, 339-358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Forum.: 2006, ‘2005 Report on Social Responsible Investing Trends in the United States: 10-Year Review’, Social Investment Forum Industry Research Program: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavrou, E., Kassinis, G., and Filotheou, A.: 2007, ‘Downsizing and Stakeholder Orientation among the Fortune 500: Does Family Ownership Matter?’, Journal of Business Ethics 72, 149-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A.: 2003, ‘Help One Another, Use One Another: Toward an Anthropology of Family Business’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27(4), 383-396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L.: 1965, ‘Social Structure and Organizations’, in J. G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, (Rand McNally, Chicago), pp. 142-193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. A., and Bunderson, J. S.: 2003, ‘Violations of Principle: Ideological Currency in the Psychological Contract’, Academy of Management Review 28, 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., and Ghoshal, S.: 1998, ‘Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks’, Academy of Management Journal 41, 464-476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umphress, E. E. and J. B. Bingham: 2010, ‘When Employees Do Bad Things for Good Reasons: Examining Unethical Pro-Organizational Behaviors’, Organization Science, doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0559.

  • Umphress, E.E., Bingham, J.B., & Mitchell, M.S.: 2010, ‘Unethical Behavior in the Name of the Company: The Moderating Effect of Organizational Identification and Positive Reciprocity Beliefs on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology 95, 769- 780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren III, H. J.: 2005, ‘An Employee-Centered Model of Corporate Social Performance’, Business Ethics Quarterly 15, 687-709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., and Graves, S. B.: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18, 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M.: 2010, ‘Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 94, 581–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., and Cochran, P. L.: 1985, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10, 758-769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A., Rands, G., and Godfrey, P. C.: 2001, ‘What are the Responsibilities of Business to Society?’, in A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, and R. Whittington (eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management, (Sage Publications, London), pp. 373-410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16, 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., and Jones, R. E.: 1995, ‘Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3, 229-267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y.: 2004. The impact of public opinion on board structure changes, director career progression, and CEO turnover: Evidence from CalPERS’ corporate governance program’, Journal of Corporate Finance 10, 199-227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ylvisaker, P. N.: 1990, ‘Family Foundations: High Risk, High Reward’, Family Business Review 3, 331-335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A.: 2003, ‘International Expansion of U.S. Manufacturing Family Businesses: The Effect of Ownership and Involvement’, Journal of Business Venturing 18, 495-512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., and Nason, R. S.: 2008, A Stakeholder Perspective on Family Firm Performance’, Family Business Review 21, 203-216.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, 583 TNRB, Provo, UT, 84604, U.S.A.

    John B. Bingham

  2. Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, 590 TNRB, Provo, UT, 84604, U.S.A.

    W. Gibb Dyer Jr.

  3. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A.

    Isaac Smith

  4. Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, 679 TNRB, Provo, UT, 84604, U.S.A.

    Gregory L. Adams

Authors
  1. John B. Bingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Gibb Dyer Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isaac Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory L. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Bingham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bingham, J.B., Gibb Dyer, W., Smith, I. et al. A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms. J Bus Ethics 99, 565–585 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0669-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0669-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation