How Family Character Affect the Financing of Environmental Protection Strategies and Energy-Saving Measures

  1. Cristina López-Cózar-Navarro 1
  2. Tiziana Priede-Bergamini 2
  3. Sonia Benito-Hernández 1
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03n6nwv02

  2. 2 Universidad Europea de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Europea de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04dp46240

Revista:
Amfiteatru Economic

ISSN: 1582-9146,  2247-9104

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 25

Número: 63

Páginas: 503-521

Tipo: Artículo

GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Amfiteatru Economic

Resumen

Family firms have been consolidating for years as a very important asset in most economies in the European Union. Developing from the influence of the family on the core objectives, these firms show specific features on how internal processes are developed. These differences may also be reflected in their attitude towards corporate social responsibility and environmental policies. The present paper focusses on their behaviour on environmental responsibility, specifically referring to the energy-saving issue. Empirical results, based on a sample of 1,771 Spanish manufacturing firms, show that the family character has a positive effect on the proactive environmental strategy. Moreover, different sources of finance may alter this main effect in various ways. Unpredictably, self-financing weakens the positive effect of family ownership on environmental protection and energy saving, whereas indebtedness is not a barrier, and public support strengthens the positive relationship. Our findings contribute to better understanding the involvement of family firms in responsible behaviour and the impact of different financial sources to promote the challenge of energy for the European Union.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abeysekera, A.P. and Fernando, C.S., 2020. Corporate social responsibility versus corporate shareholder responsibility: A family firm perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, [online] 61, article no. 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.05.003.
  • Agostino, M. and Ruberto, S., 2021. Environment-friendly practices: Family versus nonfamily firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 329, article no. 129689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129689.
  • Aibar-Guzmán, B., García-Sánchez, I.-M., Aibar-Guzmán, C. and Hussain, N., 2022. Sustainable product innovation in agri-food industry: Do ownership structure and capital structure matter? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, [online] 7(1), article no. 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.100160.
  • Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S., 2003. A Contingent Resource-Based View of Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy. Academy of Management Review, [online] 28(1), pp.71-88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925233.
  • Arranz, N., Arguello, N.L. and Fernández De Arroyabe, J.C., 2021. How do internal, market and institutional factors affect the development of eco-innovation in firms? Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 297, article no. 126692. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2021.126692.
  • Arzubiaga, U., De Massis, A., Maseda, A. and Iturralde, T., 2023. The influence of family firm image on access to financial resources in family SMEs: a signaling theory perspective. Review of Managerial Science, [online] 17(1), pp.233-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00516-2.
  • Ayuso, S. and Navarrete-Báez, F.E., 2018. How Does Entrepreneurial and International Orientation Influence SMEs’ Commitment to Sustainable Development? Empirical Evidence from Spain and Mexico: Entrepreneurial and International SMEs’ Commitment to SD. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, [online] 25(1), pp.80-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1441.
  • Baixauli-Soler, J.S., Belda-Ruiz, M. and Sánchez-Marín, G., 2021. Socioemotional wealth and financial decisions in private family SMEs. Journal of Business Research, [online] 123, pp.657-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.022.
  • Bansal, P., 2005. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, [online] 26(3), pp.197-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441.
  • Bansal, P. and Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, [online] 43(4), pp.717-736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556363.
  • Barnea, A. and Rubin, A., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 97(1), pp.71-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z.
  • Belda-Ruiz, M., Sánchez-Marín, G. and Baixauli-Soler, J.S., 2022. Influence of familycentered goals on dividend policy in family firms: A socioemotional wealth approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, [online] 18(4), pp.1503-1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00741-x
  • Bendell, B.L., 2022. Environmental investment decisions of family firms – An analysis of competitor and government influence. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 31(1), pp.1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2870.
  • Benito-Hernández, S., López-Cózar-Navarro, C. and Priede-Bergamini, T., 2021. Influence of Government Support on Proactive Environmental Strategies in Family Firms. Sustainability, [online] 13(24), article no. 13973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su132413973.
  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. and Larraza-Kintana, M., 2010. Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less? Administrative Science Quarterly, [online] 55(1), pp.82-113. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.82.
  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2013. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations: Necessity as the Mother of ‘Green’ Inventions. Strategic Management Journal, [online] 34(8), pp.891-909. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041.
  • Block, J.H. and Wagner, M., 2014. The Effect of Family Ownership on Different Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Large US Firms: Effect of Family Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 23(7), pp.475-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1798.
  • Broccardo, L., Truant, E. and Zicari, A., 2019. Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, [online] 26(1), pp.1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1672.
  • Burgstaller, J. and Wagner, E., 2015. How do family ownership and founder management affect capital structure decisions and adjustment of SMEs?: Evidence from a bank-based economy. The Journal of Risk Finance, [online] 16(1), pp.73-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRF-06-2014-0091.
  • Cirillo, A., Pennacchio, L., Carillo, M.R. and Romano, M., 2021. The antecedents of entrepreneurial risk-taking in private family firms: CEO seasons and contingency factors. Small Business Economics, [online] 56(4), pp.1571-1590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00279-x.
  • Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. and Vasvari, F.P., 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, [online] 33(4-5), pp.303-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003.
  • Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. and Vasvari, F.P., 2011. Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, [online] 30(2), pp.122-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jaccpubpol.2010.09.013.
  • Clauß, T., Kraus, S. and 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, [online] 176, article no. 121450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121450.
  • Comino-Jurado, M., Sánchez-Andújar, S. and Parrado-Martínez, P., 2021. Reassessing debtfinancing decisions in family firms: Family involvement on the board of directors and generational stage. Journal of Business Research, [online] 135, pp.426-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.060.
  • Craig, J. and Dibrell, C., 2006. The Natural Environment, Innovation, and Firm Performance: A Comparative Study. Family Business Review, [online] 19(4), pp.275-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00075.x.
  • Dangelico, R.M., Nastasi, A. and Pisa, S., 2019. A comparison of family and nonfamily small firms in their approach to green innovation: A study of Italian companies in the agri‐ food industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 28(7), pp.1434-1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2324.
  • De Marchi, V., 2012. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, [online] 41(3), pp.614-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002.
  • De Massis, A., Audretsch, D., Uhlaner, L. and Kammerlander, N., 2018. Innovation with Limited Resources: Management Lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [online] 35(1), pp.125-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jpim.12373.
  • Dekker, J. and Hasso, T., 2016. Environmental Performance Focus in Private Family Firms: The Role of Social Embeddedness. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 136(2), pp.293-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2516-x.
  • Delgado-Ceballos, J., Aragón-Correa, J.A., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. and Rueda-Manzanares, A., 2012. The Effect of Internal Barriers on the Connection Between Stakeholder Integration and Proactive Environmental Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 107(3), pp.281-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1039-y.
  • Díaz-Chao, Á., Ficapal-Cusí, P. and Torrent-Sellens, J., 2021. Environmental assets, industry 4.0 technologies and firm performance in Spain: A dynamic capabilities path to reward sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 281, no article 125264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125264.
  • Doluca, H., Wagner, M. and Block, J., 2018. Sustainability and Environmental Behaviour in Family Firms: A Longitudinal Analysis of Environment‐ Related Activities, Innovation and Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 27(1), pp.152-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1998.
  • Dou, J., Su, E. and Wang, S., 2019. When Does Family Ownership Promote Proactive Environmental Strategy? The Role of the Firm’s Long-Term Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 158(1), pp.81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3642-z.
  • Elsayed, K., 2006. Reexamining the Expected Effect of Available Resources and Firm Size on Firm Environmental Orientation: An Empirical Study of UK Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 65(3), pp.297-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-6402-z.
  • Fan, Y., Zhang, F. and Zhu, L., 2021. Do family firms invest more in pollution prevention strategy than non-family firms? An integration of agency and institutional theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 286, article no. 124988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124988.
  • Gadenne, D.L., Kennedy, J. and McKeiver, C., 2009. An Empirical Study of Environmental Awareness and Practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 84(1), pp.45-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9672-9.
  • Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., Murillo-Luna, J.L. and Suárez-Gálvez, C., 2022. Does it pay more to be green in family firms than in non-family firms? Review of Managerial Science, [online] 16(5), pp.1365-1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00475-8.
  • González, M., Guzmán, A., Pombo, C. and Trujillo, M.-A., 2013. Family firms and debt: Risk aversion versus risk of losing control. Journal of Business Research, [online] 66(11), pp.2308-2320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.03.014.
  • Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp.986-1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00307.x.
  • Hilliard, I. and Priede, T., 2018. Benchmarking responsible management and non-financial reporting. Benchmarking: An International Journal, [online] 25(8), pp.2931-2949. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2017-0255.
  • Hu, S. and Wang, X., 2021. The Origin of Proactive Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) of Large Firms: Institutional Embeddedness – Driven, Family Involvement-Promoted, or Resource-Dependent? Sustainability, [online] 13(3), article no. 1197. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031197.
  • Kallio, T.J. and Nordberg, P., 2006. The Evolution of Organizations and Natural Environment Discourse: Some Critical Remarks. Organization & Environment, [online] 19(4), pp.439-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026606294955.
  • Kotlar, J., Fang, H., De Massis, A. and Frattini, F., 2014. Profitability Goals, Control Goals, and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms: R&D Investment Decisions of Family Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [online] 31(6), pp.1128-1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12165.
  • Labelle, R., Hafsi, T., Francoeur, C. and Ben Amar, W., 2018. Family Firms’ Corporate Social Performance: A Calculated Quest for Socioemotional Wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 148(3), pp.511-525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2982-9.
  • Laguir, I., Laguir, L. and Elbaz, J., 2016. Are Family Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises More Socially Responsible Than Nonfamily Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises?: Are Family SMEs More Socially Responsible Than Nonfamily SMEs? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, [online] 23(6), pp.386-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1384.
  • Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D., 2022. Family businesses under COVID-19: Inspiring models – Sometimes. Journal of Family Business Strategy, [online] 13(2), article no. 100452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2021.100452.
  • Li, Z., Liao, G. and Albitar, K., 2020. Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 29(3), article no. 1045-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2416.
  • Liu, T., Liang, D., Zhang, Y., Song, Y. and Xing, X., 2019. The antecedent and performance of environmental managers’ proactive pollution reduction behavior in Chinese manufacturing firms: Insight from the proactive behavior theory. Journal of Environmental Management, [online] 242, pp.327-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2019.04.050.
  • López-Cózar-Navarro, C., Priede-Bergamini, T., and Benito-Hernandez, S., 2017. The Link between Firm Size and Corporate Social Responsibility. Ethical Perspectives, 24(2), pp.259-296. https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.24.2.3218004.
  • López-Delgado, P. and Diéguez-Soto, J., 2020. Indebtedness in family-managed firms: the moderating role of female directors on the board. Review of Managerial Science, [online] 14(4), pp.727-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0307-y.
  • Manzaneque, M., Rojo-Ramírez, A.A., Diéguez-Soto, J. and Martínez-Romero, M.J., 2020. How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency. Small Business Economics, [online] 54(1), pp.209-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0091-8.
  • Martínez-Alonso, R., Martínez-Romero, M.J. and Rojo-Ramírez, A.A., 2019. Examining the Impact of Innovation Forms on Sustainable Economic Performance: The Influence of Family Management. Sustainability, [online] 11(21), article no. 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11216132.
  • Martínez-Ferrero, J., Rodríguez-Ariza, L. and García-Sánchez, I.-M., 2016. Corporate social responsibility as an entrenchment strategy, with a focus on the implications of family ownership. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 135, pp.760-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.133.
  • Mazzelli, A., Kotlar, J. and De Massis, A., 2018. Blending In While Standing Out: Selective Conformity and New Product Introduction in Family Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, [online] 42(2), pp.206-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717748651.
  • Michiels, A. and Molly, V., 2017. Financing Decisions in Family Businesses: A Review and Suggestions for Developing the Field. Family Business Review, [online] 30(4), pp.369- 399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517736958.
  • Miroshnychenko, I. and De Massis, A., 2022. Sustainability practices of family and nonfamily firms: A worldwide study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [online] 174, article no. 121079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121079.
  • Paraschiv, D.M., Nemoianu, E.L., Langă, C.A. and Szabó, T., 2012. Eco-innovation, responsible leadership and organizational change for corporate sustainability. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 14(32), pp.404-419.
  • Potrich, L., Cortimiglia, M.N. and De Medeiros, J.F., 2019. A systematic literature review on firm-level proactive environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, [online] 243, pp.273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.110.
  • Priede-Bergamini, T., López-Cózar-Navarro, C. and Benito Hernández, S., 2020. Cooperation behaviour towards innovation examining differences between family and non-family businesses. Transformations in Business & Economics, 19(3), pp.310-328.
  • Quintana‐ García, C., Marchante‐ Lara, M. and Benavides‐ Chicón, C.G., 2022. Towards sustainable development: Environmental innovation, cleaner production performance, and reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, [online] 29(5), pp.1330-1340. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2272.
  • Rahman, N. and Post, C., 2012. Measurement Issues in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR): Toward a Transparent, Reliable, and Construct Valid Instrument. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 105(3), pp.307-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0967-x.
  • Rees, W. and Rodionova, T., 2015. The Influence of Family Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility: An International Analysis of Publicly Listed Companies: Families and CSR. Corporate Governance: An International Review, [online] 23(3), pp.184-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12086.
  • Rubino, F. and Napoli, F., 2020. What Impact Does Corporate Governance Have on Corporate Environmental Performances? An Empirical Study of Italian Listed Firms. Sustainability, [online] 12(14), no article 5742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12145742.
  • Rydvalová, P., Horynová, E.K. and Zbránková, M., 2016. Family Business as Source of Municipality Development in the Czech Republic. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, [online] 18(41), pp.168-183. Available at: <https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/ 168994> [Accessed 21 January 2023].
  • Samara, G., Jamali, D., Sierra, V. and Parada, M.J., 2018. Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, [online] 9(1), pp.33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.11.004.
  • Sharma, S. and Starik, M., 2009. Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, [online] 21(3), pp.288-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2004.tb00343.x.
  • Sharma, P. and Sharma, S., 2011. Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, [online] 21(2), pp.309-334. https://doi.org/10.5840/ beq201121218.
  • Uhlaner, L.M., Berent-Braun, M.M., Jeurissen, R.J.M. and De Wit, G., 2012. Beyond Size: Predicting Engagement in Environmental Management Practices of Dutch SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 109(4), pp.411-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 011-1137-x