Menu Expand

Einfluss von Einzel- und Familienaktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship
  4. Vol. 72, Issue 2
  5. pp. 61–79

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Krolak, T., Meier, J. Einfluss von Einzel- und Familienaktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 72(2), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1455701
Krolak, Thomas and Meier, Jan-Hendrik "Einfluss von Einzel- und Familienaktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 72.2, 2024, 61-79. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1455701
Krolak, Thomas/Meier, Jan-Hendrik (2024): Einfluss von Einzel- und Familienaktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 72, iss. 2, 61-79, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1455701
Format
Download

Einfluss von Einzel- und Familienaktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen

Krolak, Thomas | Meier, Jan-Hendrik

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 72 (2024), Iss. 2 : pp. 61–79

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1455701
Language
German
Pages
19

Pricing

Individual
€ 24.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Prof. Dr. Thomas Krolak, Institut für Controlling, Fachhochschule Kiel, Sokratesplatz 2, 24149 Kiel, Deutschland

  • Prof. Dr. Thomas Krolak lehrt und forscht am Institut für Controlling an der Fachhochschule Kiel. Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Beteiligungscontrolling und Familienunternehmen.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Meier, Fachhochschule Kiel, Institut für Rechnungswesen und Revision, Sokratesplatz 2, 24149 Kiel, Deutschland

  • Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Meier wirkt am Institut für Rechnungswesen und Revision an der Fachhochschule Kiel. Als Gastprofessor ist er an den Universitäten Lodz und ISET Tiflis tätig. Sein Forschungsschwerpunkt ist die empirische Kapitalmarktforschung.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Albert, S., Whetten, D. A. (1985): Organizational Identity, in: Staw, B. M. und Cummings, L. L. (Hrsg.): Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 263–295.  Google Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B., Mael, F. (1996): Organizational Identity and Strategy as a Context for the Individual, in: Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 19–64.  Google Scholar
  3. Bertrand, M., Schoar, A. (2006): The Role of Family in Family Firms, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 73–96.  Google Scholar
  4. Bingham, J. B., Gibb Dyer, W., Smith, I., Adams, G. L. (2011): A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 565–585.  Google Scholar
  5. Brickson, S. L. (2005): Organizational Identity Orientation: Forging a Link between Organizational Identity and Organizations’ Relations with Stakeholders, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.  Google Scholar
  6. Brickson, S. L. (2007): Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value, in: The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.  Google Scholar
  7. Broadstock, D. C., Chan, K., Cheng, L. T. W., Wang, X. (2021): The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China, in: Finance Research Letters, 38, 101716.  Google Scholar
  8. Canavati, S. (2018): Corporate social performance in family firms: A meta-analysis, in: Journal of Family Business Management, 8(3), 235–273.  Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, A. B. (1991): The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders, in: Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.  Google Scholar
  10. Casado-Belmonte, M. D. P., Capobianco-Uriarte, M. D. L. M., Martínez-Alonso, R., Martínez-Romero, M. J. (2021): Delineating the Path of Family Firm Innovation: Mapping the Scientific Structure, in: Review of Managerial Science, 15(8), 2455–2499.  Google Scholar
  11. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., De Massis, A. (2015): A Closer Look at Socioemotional Wealth: Its Flows, Stocks, and Prospects for Moving Forward, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 173–182.  Google Scholar
  12. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P. (1999): Defining the Family Business by Behavior, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.  Google Scholar
  13. Cordeiro, J. J., Profumo, G., Tutore, I. (2021): Family ownership and stockholder reactions to environmental performance disclosure: A test of secondary agency relationships, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2091–2107.  Google Scholar
  14. Diebecker, J., Sommer, F. (2017): The impact of corporate sustainability performance on information asymmetry: The role of institutional differences, in: Review of Managerial Science, 11(2), 471–517.  Google Scholar
  15. Dutton, J. E. Dukerich, J. M. (1991): Keeping An Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity In Organizational Adaptation, in: Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.  Google Scholar
  16. Dyer, W. G., Whetten, D. A. (2006): Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.  Google Scholar
  17. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., Mishra, D. R. (2010): Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect the Cost of Capital? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 1546755), [https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1546755].  Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2021): Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).  Google Scholar
  19. European Union (2019): Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on Sustainability‐Related Disclosures in the Financial Services Sector (SFDR). Official Journal of the European Union, L 317/1.  Google Scholar
  20. European Union (2020): EU Taxonomy Regulation. Official Journal of the European Union, L 198/13.  Google Scholar
  21. Fama, E. F., Jensen, M. C. (1983): Separation of Ownership and Control, in: The Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2), 301–325.  Google Scholar
  22. Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., Kaiser, S. (2018): ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure, in: Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64.  Google Scholar
  23. Friede, G. (2019): Why don’t we see more action? A metasynthesis of the investor impediments to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1260–1282.  Google Scholar
  24. Friede, G., Busch, T., Bassen, A. (2015): ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies, in: Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.  Google Scholar
  25. Fritz, M. M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A., Harms, R. (2021): Sustainability management in supply chains: The role of familiness, in: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121078.  Google Scholar
  26. Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., Starks, L. T. (2021): Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance, in: Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889.  Google Scholar
  27. Global Reporting Initiative (2021): GRI Standards.  Google Scholar
  28. Godfrey, P., Merrill, C., Hansen, J. (2009): The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: An Empirical Test of the Risk Management Hypothesis, in: Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.  Google Scholar
  29. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., De Castro, J. (2011): The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms, in: Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.  Google Scholar
  30. Gomez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007): Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.  Google Scholar
  31. International Labour Organization (ILO, 2021): ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Online verfügbar.  Google Scholar
  32. KLD Research & Analytics (2023): KLD STATS Dataset.  Google Scholar
  33. Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., Tamayo, A. (2017): Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis: Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance, in: The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.  Google Scholar
  34. Mariani, M. M., Al-Sultan, K., De Massis, A. (2023): Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature review, in: Journal of Small Business Management, 61(3), 1192–1246.  Google Scholar
  35. Matten, D., Moon, J. (2008): ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility, in: Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.  Google Scholar
  36. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. (1997): Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues, in: Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 626–657.  Google Scholar
  37. McWilliams, T. P., McWilliams, V. B. (2000): Another Look At Theoretical And Empirical Issues In Event Study Methodology, in: Journal of Applied Business Research, 16(3).  Google Scholar
  38. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. (2021): Family Firms: A Breed of Extremes?, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 663–681.  Google Scholar
  39. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Scholnick, B. (2008): Stewardship vs. Stagnation: An Empirical Comparison of Small Family and Non-Family Businesses, in: Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.  Google Scholar
  40. Miroshnychenko, I., De Massis, A., Barontini, R., Testa, F. (2022): Family Firms and Environmental Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review, in: Family Business Review, 35(1), 68–90.  Google Scholar
  41. Pérez-González, F. (2006): Inherited Control and Firm Performance, in: American Economic Review, 96(5), 1559–1588.  Google Scholar
  42. Pratt, M. G., Foreman, P. O. (2000): Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities, in: The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.  Google Scholar
  43. Refinitiv (2022): Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores from Refinitiv. [https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf].  Google Scholar
  44. Sun, J., Pellegrini, M. M., Dabić, M., Wang, K., Wang, C. (2023): Family ownership and control as drivers for environmental, social, and governance in family firms, in: Review of Managerial Science, 18, 1015–1046.  Google Scholar
  45. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2017): Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.  Google Scholar
  46. Tiberius, V., Stiller, L., Dabić, M. (2021): Sustainability beyond economic prosperity: Social microfoundations of dynamic capabilities in family businesses, in: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121093.  Google Scholar
  47. United Nations (2006): Principles for Responsible Investment.  Google Scholar
  48. Velte, P. (2017): Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany, in: Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169–178.  Google Scholar
  49. Villalonga, B. (2018): The impact of ownership on building sustainable and responsible businesses, in: Journal of the British Academy, 6(s1), 375–403.  Google Scholar
  50. Zhou, G., Liu, L., Luo, S. (2022): Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 3371–3387.  Google Scholar

Abstract

The topic of ESG compliance has become a central focus in economic discussions. In this context, companies dominated by individual or family ownership are often perceived as having a favorable stance on sustainability. However, this perception does not always align with their actual ESG performance. This study examines the ESG compliance of companies within the STOXX 600 and S&P 500 indices, focusing on individual and family ownership dominance, using the Refinitiv ESG score. The analysis, covering the period from 2010 to 2022, reveals that individual- or family-dominated companies consistently underperform compared to their peers, both in overall ESG compliance and across the environmental, social, and governance dimensions.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Thomas Krolak / Jan-Hendrik Meier: Einfluss von Einzel- und Familien­aktionären auf die ESG-Performance von Unternehmen 61
Zusammenfassung 61
Abstract 61
I. Einleitung 62
II. Stand der Literatur, Forschungslücke und Hypothesenbildung 63
III. Methodik und Stichprobe 69
IV. Ergebnisse 71
1. Datendeskription 71
2. Modellergebnisse 73
V. Diskussion 74
VI. Fazit 75
Literatur 76

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2025 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.