Menu Expand

Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship
  4. Vol. 72, Issue 3–4
  5. pp. 135–175

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Stock, C., Hossinger, S., Werner, A., Kraus, S. Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 72(3–4), 135-175. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1465302
Stock, Christoph Rainer; Hossinger, Stefan Marc; Werner, Arndt and Kraus, Sascha "Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 72.3–4, 2024, 135-175. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1465302
Stock, Christoph Rainer/Hossinger, Stefan Marc/Werner, Arndt/Kraus, Sascha (2024): Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 72, iss. 3–4, 135-175, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1465302
Format
Download

Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs

Stock, Christoph Rainer | Hossinger, Stefan Marc | Werner, Arndt | Kraus, Sascha

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 72(2024), Iss. 3–4 : pp. 135–175 | First published online: September 12, 2025

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2024.1465302
Language
German
Pages
41

Pricing

Individual
€ 24.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

*Christoph Stock is Senior Manager for Business Relations & Program Coordination at Rheinmetall AG in Düsseldorf (Germany), focusing on strategic coordination within the Cyber and Information Domain. A former Army Captain with over a decade of military leadership and IT project management experience, he previously led AdTech innovation at planus media GmbH and held various roles in the German Armed Forces, including international deployment with NATO KFOR. Dr. Stock holds a doctorate in Economics (Dr. rer. pol., summa cum laude) from the University of Siegen, where he also served as a research associate specializing in SME management, family firms, CSR, and digital innovation. He is a graduate of the University of the Bundeswehr Munich (B. Sc. & M. Sc. in Economics and Organizational Sciences) and an alumnus of the Strategic Management Executive Program at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. His current work bridges defense, technology, and sustainable strategic development.

Stefan Hossinger is Head of Sustainable Investments at VBL. Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder in Karlsruhe (Germany), where he oversees the development and implementation of ESG investment strategies, regulatory compliance (e.g., EU Taxonomy, SFDR, Benchmark Regulation), and impact-oriented capital allocation. He previously served as a Sustainability Investment Officer at VBL, focusing on ESG analysis, collaboration with external asset managers, and sustainability reporting. Dr. Hossinger earned his doctorate in Business Administration (Dr. rer. pol.) from the University of Siegen, where he was also a research associate at the Chair of SME Management & Entrepreneurship. His research addressed topics such as knowledge and technology transfer, academic entrepreneurship, digital transformation in SMEs, and corporate social responsibility. He holds an M. Sc. and B. Sc. in Business Administration from the University of Trier with specializations in marketing, strategic management, finance, and tax accounting.

Arndt Werner is Full Professor and Chairholder of Business Administration, especially Management of SMEs and Entrepreneurship, at the University of Siegen (Germany). He earned his doctorate in Business Administration and Human Resources Management from the University of Cologne and completed his Habilitation at the University of Siegen in 2012. Prior to his current role, he served as a project coordinator and member of the management board at the Institute for SME Research in Bonn (IfM Bonn). He also held professorships in International Management at RWTH Aachen University and in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management at the University of Siegen. Professor Werner has published his research in high-ranking journals such as Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Small Business Economics, and the Journal of Technology Transfer. His research combines microeconomic and behavioral theory, with a primary emphasis on quantitative methods, complemented increasingly by qualitative approaches, particularly case study research. His current work focuses on innovation behavior in family firms and academic innovation transfer through mechanisms such as university spin-offs.

Sascha Kraus is Full Professor and Chairholder in Management at the University of Siegen (Germany) and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg (South Africa). He holds a doctorate in Social and Economic Sciences from Klagenfurt University (Austria), a Ph. D. in Industrial Engineering and Management from Helsinki University of Technology, and a Habilitation (Venia Docendi) from Lappeenranta University of Technology (both in Finland). Previously, he held full professorships at Utrecht University (The Netherlands), the University of Liechtenstein, École Supérieure du Commerce Extérieur in Paris (France), Durham University (United Kingdom), and the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (Italy). Additionally, he has been a Visiting Professor at Copenhagen Business School (Denmark) and the University of St. Gallen (Switzerland).

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012): What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.  Google Scholar
  2. Albert, S., Whetten, D. A. (1985): Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.  Google Scholar
  3. Arijs, D., Botero, I. C., Michiels, A., Molly, V. (2018): Family business employer brand: Understanding applicants’ perceptions and their job pursuit intentions with samples from the US and Belgium. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(3), 180–191.  Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J. S., Overton, T. S. (1977): Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.  Google Scholar
  5. Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., Very, P. (2007): The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.  Google Scholar
  6. Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F. (1989): Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.  Google Scholar
  7. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., Almeida, J. G. (2000): Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924.  Google Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y. (1988): On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 16(1), 74–95.  Google Scholar
  9. Banfield, E. C. (1958): The moral basis of a backward society. Free Press, Glencoe, IL.  Google Scholar
  10. Barros, I., Hernangómez, J., Martin-Cruz, N. (2017): Familiness and socioemotional wealth in Spanish family firms: An empirical examination. European Journal of Family Business, 7(1/2), 14–24.  Google Scholar
  11. Basly, S., Saunier, P. L. (2020): Familiness, socio-emotional goals and the internationalization of French family SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 18(3), 270–311.  Google Scholar
  12. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., Smith, K. G. (2001): A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.  Google Scholar
  13. Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. J., Scherer, A. G. (2013): Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705.  Google Scholar
  14. Bingham, J. B., Dyer, W. B., Smith, I., Adams, G. L. (2011): A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 565–585.  Google Scholar
  15. Block, J. (2010): Family management, family ownership, and downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Family Business Review, 23(2), 109–130.  Google Scholar
  16. Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., Lau, J., Obschonka, M., Presse, A. (2016): Who prefers working in family firms? An exploratory study of individuals’ organizational preferences across 40 countries. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(2), 65–74.  Google Scholar
  17. Block, J. H., Spiegel, F. (2013): Family firm density and regional innovation output: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(4), 270–280.  Google Scholar
  18. Block, J. H., Wagner, M. (2014): The effect of family ownership on different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from large US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(7), 475–492.  Google Scholar
  19. Borghesi, R., Chang, K., Li, Y. (2019): Firm value in commonly uncertain times: the divergent effects of corporate governance and CSR. Applied Economics, 51(43), 4726–4741.  Google Scholar
  20. Bouncken, R., Barwinski, R. (2021): Shared digital identity and rich knowledge ties in global 3D printing – A drizzle in the clouds? Global Strategy Journal, 11(1), 81–108.  Google Scholar
  21. Bouncken, R. B., Hughes, M., Ratzmann, M., Cesinger, B., Pesch, R. (2020): Family firms, alliance governance and mutual knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 31(4), 769–791.  Google Scholar
  22. Bourdieu, P. (1986): The forms of capital. In: J. E. Richardson (eds.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT.  Google Scholar
  23. Bowen, H. (1953): Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper.  Google Scholar
  24. 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(3), 864–888.  Google Scholar
  25. Cable, D. M., Turban, D. B. (2003): The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2244–2266.  Google Scholar
  26. Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., Chirico, F. (2014): Firm philanthropy in small-and medium-sized family firms: The effects of family involvement in ownership and management. Family Business Review, 27(3), 244–258.  Google Scholar
  27. Canavati, S. (2018): Corporate social performance in family firms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(3), 235–273.  Google Scholar
  28. Carroll, A. B. (1999): Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–195.  Google Scholar
  29. Castejón, P. J. M., López, B. A. (2016): Corporate social responsibility in family SMEs: A comparative study. European Journal of Family Business, 6(1), 21–31.  Google Scholar
  30. Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012): Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1153–1173.  Google Scholar
  31. Cesinger, B., Hughes, M., Mensching, H., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., Kraus, S. (2016): A socioemotional wealth perspective on how collaboration intensity, trust, and international market knowledge affect family firms’ multinationality. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 586–599.  Google Scholar
  32. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. (2014): Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategy Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.  Google Scholar
  33. Chih, H. L., Chih, H. H., Chen, T. Y. (2010): On the determinants of corporate social responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 115–135.  Google Scholar
  34. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P. (1999): Defining the family business by behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), pp. 19–39.  Google Scholar
  35. Clauß, T., Kraus, S., Jones, P. (2022): Sustainability in family business: Mechanisms, technologies and business models for achieving economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121450.  Google Scholar
  36. Cole, M. S., Bruch, H. (2006): Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 585–605.  Google Scholar
  37. Costello, A. B., Osborne, J. (2005): Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment. Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.  Google Scholar
  38. Cruz, C., Justo, R., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L. (2019): When do women make a better table? Examining the influence of women directors on family firm’s corporate social performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 282–301.  Google Scholar
  39. Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garces-Galdeano, L., Berrone, P. (2014): Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 2395–1316.  Google Scholar
  40. Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., García-Sánchez, I. M. (2015): The role of independent directors at family firms in relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures. International Business Review, 24(5), 890–901.  Google Scholar
  41. Cui, V., Ding, S., Liu, M., Wu, Z. (2018): Revisiting the effect of family involvement on corporate social responsibility: A behavioral agency perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 291–309.  Google Scholar
  42. Dahlsrud, A. (2008): How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.  Google Scholar
  43. Danes, S. M., Lee, J., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K. Z. (2008): The effects of ethnicity, families and culture on entrepreneurial experience: An extension of sustainable family business theory. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 229–268.  Google Scholar
  44. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Donaldson, L. (1997): Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.  Google Scholar
  45. De Massis, A., Audretsch, A., Uhlaner, L., Kammerlander, N. (2018): Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 125–146.  Google Scholar
  46. Déniz Déniz, M. D. L. C., Cabrera Suárez, M. K. (2005): Corporate social responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 27–41.  Google Scholar
  47. Faller, C. M., zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018): Does equity ownership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature review of theories and recent empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 15–40.  Google Scholar
  48. Fama, E., Jensen, M. (1983): Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.  Google Scholar
  49. Fehre, K., Weber, F. (2019): Why some are more equal: Family firm heterogeneity and the effect on management’s attention to CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(3), 321–334.  Google Scholar
  50. Fifka, M. S., Reiser, D. (2015): Corporate social responsibility in between governmental regulation and voluntary initiative: The case of Germany. In: S. O. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter, M. S. Fifka (eds.), Corporate social responsibility in Europe – United in sustainable diversity (pp. 125–135). Springer, Cham.  Google Scholar
  51. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., Sobrero, M. (2012): The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 387–414.  Google Scholar
  52. Fitzgerald, M. A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H. L., Danes, S. M. (2010): Socially responsible processes of small family business owners: Exploratory evidence from the national family business survey. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(4), 524–551.  Google Scholar
  53. Foreman, P., Whetten, D. A. (2002): Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.  Google Scholar
  54. Fornell, C., Larcker, D. F. (1981): Evaluating structural equational models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.  Google Scholar
  55. Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2017): Capturing the familiness of family business: Development of the Family Influence Familiness Scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 709–742.  Google Scholar
  56. Fuller, T., Tian, Y. (2006): Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: An empirical investigation of SME narratives. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 287–304.  Google Scholar
  57. Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B. (1996): Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403.  Google Scholar
  58. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007): Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.  Google Scholar
  59. Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L. (1999): A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.  Google Scholar
  60. Hernes, T., Bakken, T. (2003): Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1511–1535.  Google Scholar
  61. Hur, W., Kim, H., Woo, J. (2014): How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 75–86.  Google Scholar
  62. IfM (2016): SME-definition of IfM Bonn. https://en.ifm-bonn.org/definitions/sme-definition-of-ifm-bonn/. Downloaded April 12, 2020.  Google Scholar
  63. Jaskiewicz, P., Dyer, W. D. (2017): Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 111–118.  Google Scholar
  64. Jaufenthaler, P., Kallmuenzer, A., Kraus, S., De Massis, A. (2025): The localness effect of family firm branding on consumer perceptions and purchase intention: An experimental approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 63(2), 590–619.  Google Scholar
  65. Jensen, M., Meckling, W. (1976): Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.  Google Scholar
  66. Karampatsas, N., Aktas, N., Witkowski, A. (2021): Do Firms Adjust Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement After a Focal Change in Credit Ratings? Business & Society (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211053008. First published November 5, 2021.  Google Scholar
  67. Kashmiri, S., Mahajan, V. (2010): What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.  Google Scholar
  68. Kashmiri, S., Mahajan, V. (2014): Beating the recession blues: Exploring the link between family ownership, strategic marketing behavior and firm performance during recessions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(1), 78–93.  Google Scholar
  69. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., Malone, C. (2012): Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176.  Google Scholar
  70. Kreiner, G. E., Ashforth, B. E. (2004): Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.  Google Scholar
  71. Labelle, R., Hafsi, T., Francoeur, C., Amar, W. B. (2018): Family firms’ corporate social performance: A calculated quest for socioemotional wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 511–525.  Google Scholar
  72. Lai, C., Chiu, C., Yang, C., Pai, D. (2010): The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457–469.  Google Scholar
  73. Lai, Y., Saridakis, G., Stewart, J. (2016): Human resource practices, employee attitudes and small firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 35(4), 470–494.  Google Scholar
  74. Lambert, D. M., Harrington, T. C. (1990): Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5–25.  Google Scholar
  75. Laschewski, C., Nasev, J. (2021): Limits of private firms’ disclosure avoidance – Evidence from enforcing financial statements publication in Germany. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 106872, forthcoming.  Google Scholar
  76. Leana, C. R., Van Buren, H. J. (1999): Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.  Google Scholar
  77. Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D. (2006): Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 732–746.  Google Scholar
  78. Leoni, G. (2017): Social responsibility in practice: An Italian case from the early 20th century. Journal of Management History, 23(2), 133–151.  Google Scholar
  79. Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J. (2001): Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.  Google Scholar
  80. Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006): Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.  Google Scholar
  81. Luo, X., Du, S. (2015): Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm innovation. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 703–714.  Google Scholar
  82. Mensching, H., Kraus, S., Bouncken, R. B. (2014): Socioemotional wealth in family firm research: a literature review. Journal of International Business and Economics, 14(4), 165–172.  Google Scholar
  83. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I. (2021): Brief reflections on family firm research and some suggested paths forward. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(1), 100410.  Google Scholar
  84. Milliken, F. J. (1990): Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An examination of college administrators’ interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 42–63.  Google Scholar
  85. Muller, A. (2020): When does corporate social performance pay for international firms? Business & Society, 59, 1554–1588.  Google Scholar
  86. Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., Miller, N. J. (2008): Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 331–350.  Google Scholar
  87. Orlitzky, M., Benjamin, J. D. (2001): Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40, 369–396.  Google Scholar
  88. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., Rynes, S. L. (2003): Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403–441.  Google Scholar
  89. Padilla, M. A., Divers, J. (2016): A comparison of composite reliability estimators. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 436–453.  Google Scholar
  90. Peake, W. O., Cooper, D., Fitzgerald, M. A., Muske, G. (2017): Family business participation in community social responsibility: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 325–343.  Google Scholar
  91. Perrini, F., Russo, A., Tencati, A. (2007): CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 285–300.  Google Scholar
  92. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003): Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.  Google Scholar
  93. Podsakoff, P. M., Organ, D. W. (1986): Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.  Google Scholar
  94. Putnam, R. D. (1995): Bowling alone. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.  Google Scholar
  95. Pütz, L., Schell, S., Werner, A. (2022): Openness to knowledge: Does corporate social responsibility mediate the Relationship between familiness and absorptive capacity? Small Business Economics, online first.  Google Scholar
  96. Rau, S. B., Schneider-Siebke, V., Günther, C. (2019): Family firm values explaining family firm heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 32(2), 195–215.  Google Scholar
  97. Reay, T., Pearson, A. W., Dyer, W. G. (2013): Advising family enterprise: Examining the role of family firm advisors. Family Business Review, 26(3), 209–214.  Google Scholar
  98. Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., Sturman, M. C. (2009): A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800.  Google Scholar
  99. Rovelli, P., Ferasso, M., De Massis, A., Kraus, S. (2022): Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13(3), 100422.  Google Scholar
  100. Russo, A., Perrini, F. (2010): Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221.  Google Scholar
  101. Santos, S. C., Cardon, M. S. (2019): What’s love got to do with it? Team entrepreneurial passion and performance in new venture teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 475–504.  Google Scholar
  102. Sels, L., De Winne, S., Delmotte, J., Maes, J., Faems, D., Forrier, A. (2006): Linking HRM and small business performance: An examination of the impact of HRM intensity on the productivity and financial performance of small businesses. Small Business Economics, 26(1), 83–101.  Google Scholar
  103. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D. (2006): The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.  Google Scholar
  104. Sen, S., Cowley, J. (2013): The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 413–427.  Google Scholar
  105. Sharma, P., Sharma, S. (2011): Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 309–334.  Google Scholar
  106. Soundararajan, V., Jamali, D., Spence, L. J. (2018): Small business social responsibility: A critical multilevel review, synthesis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 934–956.  Google Scholar
  107. Spence, L. J., Schmidpeter, R., Habisch, R. (2003): Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 17–29.  Google Scholar
  108. Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Dane, S., Winter, M. (1999): A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(3), 197–208.  Google Scholar
  109. Sundaramurthy, C., Kreiner, G. E. (2008): Governing by managing identity boundaries: The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.  Google Scholar
  110. Surroca, J., Tribo, J., Waddock, S. A. (2010): Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.  Google Scholar
  111. Swab, R. G., Sherlock, C., Markin, E., Dibrell, C. (2020): “SEW” What do we know and where do we go? A review of socioemotional wealth and a way forward. Family Business Review, 33(4), 424–445.  Google Scholar
  112. Turker, D. (2009): Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.  Google Scholar
  113. Uhlaner, L. M., Berent-Braun, M. M., Jeurissen, R. J., de Wit, G. (2012): Beyond size: Predicting engagement in environmental management practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 411–429.  Google Scholar
  114. Uhlaner, L. M., Van Goor‐Balk, H. J. M. A., Masurel, E. (2004): Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 186–194.  Google Scholar
  115. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003): Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105.  Google Scholar
  116. Vazquez, P. (2018): Family business ethics: At the crossroads of business ethics and family business. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 691–709.  Google Scholar
  117. Venohr, B., Fear, J., Witt, A. (2015): Best of German Mittelstand – the world market leaders. In: F. Langscheidt, B. Venohr (eds.), Lexikon der deutschen Weltmarktführer (pp. 5–22). GABEL, Offenbach a.M.  Google Scholar
  118. Voegtlin, C., Greenwood, M. (2016): Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26(3), 181–197.  Google Scholar
  119. Wagner, M. (2010): Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 581–594.  Google Scholar
  120. Wang, L.-H., Lin, C.-H., Kao, E. H., Fung, H.-G. (2017): Good deeds earn chits? Evidence from philanthropic family controlled firms. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(3), 765–783.  Google Scholar
  121. Weismeier-Sammer, D., Frank, H., von Schlippe, A. (2013): Untangling ‘familiness’ A literature review and directions for future research. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14(3), 165–177.  Google Scholar
  122. Werner, A., Schröder, C., Chlosta, S. (2018): Driving factors of innovation in family and non-family SMEs. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 201–218.  Google Scholar
  123. Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., Cavazotte, F. (2010): Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.  Google Scholar
  124. Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., Nordqvist, M., Brush, C. G. (2013): Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial goals? An organizational identity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 229–248.  Google Scholar
  125. Zientara, P. (2017): Socioemotional wealth and corporate social responsibility: A critical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 185–199.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs

Familiengeführte kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU) sind bislang selten Gegenstand der Forschung zu Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Basierend auf einem umfassenden Datensatz von 203 deutschen Familien-KMU schlägt diese Studie ein Modell vor, in dem Familiness (FAM) als zentraler Treiber von CSR-Aktivitäten fungiert. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen insbesondere, dass ein Anstieg von FAM positiv mit drei spezifischen CSR-Aktivitäten zusammenhängt: mitarbeiter-, kunden- und gesellschaftsbezogene CSR. Wie hypothetisiert, zeigen unsere Ergebnisse zudem, dass dieser Zusammenhang in Unternehmen mit starker organisationaler Identität abgeschwächt ist. Die Studie leistet einen Beitrag zur CSR-Forschung in Familienunternehmen, indem sie ressourcenbasierte und identitätsbezogene Perspektiven integriert.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Christoph Rainer Stock et al.: Familiness and Organizational Identity as Drivers of CSR in Family-Owned SMEs 135
Abstract 135
Zusammenfassung 136
I. Introduction 137
II. Literature Overview 139
III. Theory and Hypotheses 141
1. Theoretical Framework 141
2. Hypotheses Development 143
IV. Methodology 148
1. Data and Sample 148
2. Variables 149
V. Results 153
VI. Discussion and Conclusion 160
1. Discussion 160
2. Theoretical Implications 161
3. Practical Implications 162
4. Limitations 163
5. Future Research 164
References 165
Appendix 173
Appendix 1: Measurement of corporate social responsibility 173
Appendix 2: Measurement of familiness 174
Appendix 3: Measurements of organizational identity strength 175
Appendix 4: Measurements of competitiveness 175

Contact

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

Quick Navigation

2025 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Publishing Platform by CloudPublish

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