Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T11:42:53.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Influence and Environmental Proactiveness of Family Firms in China: A Mixed Gamble Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

Bin Liu ,
Gongming Qian  and
Kevin Yuk-fai Au
Bin Liu
Affiliation:
Xiamen University, China
Gongming Qian*
Affiliation:
Southern University of Science and Technology, China
Kevin Yuk-fai Au
Affiliation:
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
*
Corresponding author: Gongming Qian (qiangm@sustech.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Built upon the mixed gamble perspective, we used a recent survey on Chinese family firms (FFs) and found that increased family influence lowers Chinese FF environmental proactiveness, as they show a peculiar tendency to take a financial view rather than a socioemotional wealth view. Moreover, we found that increased resource endowment attenuates this tendency, whereas provincial marketization strengthens it. However, entrepreneur reputation does not have a significant moderating effect. Overall, the study enriches an understanding of environmental proactiveness for FFs, organizational heterogeneity, and institutional differences. It also introduces new elements into the mixed gamble framework.

摘要

基于混合博弈模型的理论视角，我们通过对一份最新的中国家族企业调查问卷进行分析，发现这些家族企业普遍倾向于更关注金钱财富而非社会情感财富，因而随着家族影响力的增加，其企业的环保积极性反而降低。此外，我们也发现企业资源禀赋的增加会削弱上述关系，而省级市场化程度会加强上述关系。但是，企业主的个人声誉不显著影响上述关系。综合来看，本研究丰富了家族企业环保积极性的研究，强调了组织的异质性及制度环境的差异性，同时为混合博弈模型注入了新的理论要素。

Keywords

Chinaenvironmental proactivenessfamily firmsmixed gamblesocioemotional wealth家族企业环保积极性社会情感财富混合博弈模型中国
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 348 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Deputy Editor Peter Ping Li

References

REFERENCES

Banalieva, E. R., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. 2015. When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1358–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3): 258–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. 2010. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1): 82–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, M. 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, S. J., & Shim, J. 2015. When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance? Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1297–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. 2014. Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6): 1295–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. 2018. Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84(3): 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A., & Piscitello, L. 2018. Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz-Moriana, V., Hogan, T., Clinton, E., & Brophy, M. 2019. Defining family business: A closer look at definitional heterogeneity. In Memili, E., & Dibrell, C. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of heterogeneity among family firms: 333–374. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dou, J., Su, E., & Wang, S. 2019. When does family ownership promote proactive environmental strategy? The role of the firm's long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X. 2015. Is corporate philanthropy used as environmental misconduct dressing? Evidence from Chinese family-owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, H. C., Randolph, R. V., Memili, E., & Chrisman, J. J. 2016. Does size matter? The moderating effects of firm size on the employment of nonfamily managers in privately held family SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(5): 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ge, J., & Micelotta, E. 2019. When does the family matter? Institutional pressures and corporate philanthropy in China. Organization Studies, 40(6): 833–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, R., Dibrell, C., & Kim, J. 2016. Long-term orientation in publicly traded family businesses: Evidence of a dominant logic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4): 733–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Patel, P. C., & Zellweger, T. M. 2018. In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management, 44(4): 1369–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G. 2014. Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6): 1351–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifeng. 2012. The media say that China's influential entrepreneurs are either delegates to the People's Congress or the People's Political Consultative Conference [in Chinese]. [Cited 9 April 2021]. Available from URL: https://finance.ifeng.com/news/special/2012lianghui/20120313/5741953.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. 2012. Article commentary: Extending the socioemotional wealth perspective: A look at the dark side. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6): 1175–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Liu, B., & Qian, G. 2019. The belt and road initiative, cultural friction and ethnicity: Their effects on the export performance of SMEs in China. Journal of World Business, 54(4): 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W., Au, K. Y. F., He, A., & Song, L. 2015. Why do family-controlled firms donate to charity? The role of intrafamily succession intention, social status, and religiosity. Management and Organization Review, 11(4): 621–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., & Wang, Q. 2019. Can certification help incumbent firms? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37: 1061–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., & Wang, Q. 2021. Speed of China's OFDIs to the belt and road initiative destinations: State equity, industry competition and the moderating effects of the policy. Journal of International Business Policy, forthcoming. doi: 10.1057/s42214-021-00125-6Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G. P., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. 2013. Executive stock options as mixed gambles: Revisiting the behavioral agency model. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Lester, R. H. 2010. Family ownership and acquisition behavior in publicly-traded companies. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2): 201–223.Google Scholar
Nason, R., Mazzelli, A., & Carney, M. 2019. The ties that unbind: Socialization and business-owning family reference point shift. Academy of Management Review, 44(4): 846–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbert, S., & Craig, J. B. 2017. Moving beyond socioemotional wealth: Toward a normative theory of decision making in family business. Family Business Review, 30(4): 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People.cn. 2013. How does family firms break the constraints on talent development? [in Chinese]. [Cited 9 November 2021]. Available from URL: http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2013/0822/c70731-22657668.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. 2017. How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52(5): 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, G. M., Liu, B., & Wang, Q. T. 2018. Government subsidies, state ownership, regulatory infrastructure, and the import of strategic resources: Evidence from China. Multinational Business Review, 26(4): 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmutzler, J., Andonova, V., & Diaz-Serrano, L. 2019. How context shapes entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a driver of entrepreneurial intentions: A multilevel approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5): 880–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. 2016. Who cooks the books in China, and does it pay? Evidence from private, high-technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13): 2658–2676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., & Qian, C. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1159–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, P., Jiang, X., & Dong, M. C. 2021. Alliance experience and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Strategic Organization, 20(2): 412–432.Google Scholar
Wang, P., Ma, Y., & Hu, Z. 2018. Unraveling the effect of alliance experience on alliance formation and alliance governance structure: A meta-analytic approach. Australian Journal of Management, 43(4): 653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., & Liu, B. 2021. State equity and outward FDI under the theme of belt and road initiative. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi: 10.1007/s10490-020-09716-yGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., & Tang, M. 2020. Finding the ethics of ‘red capitalists’: Political connection and philanthropy of Chinese private entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1): 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Hoskisson, R. E., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. 2014a. Dueling institutional logics and the effect on strategic entrepreneurship in Chinese business groups. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3): 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Xu, Y., & Wan, W. P. 2014b. The deterrence effects of vicarious punishments on corporate financial fraud. Organization Science, 25(5): 1549–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar