This article makes the case for the socioemotional wealth (SEW) approach as the potential dominant paradigm in the family business field. The authors argue that SEW is the most important differentiator of the family firm as a unique entity and, as such, helps explain why family firms behave distinctively. In doing so, the authors review the concept of SEW, its different dimensions, and its links with other theoretical approaches. The authors also address the issue of how to measure this construct and offer various alternatives for operationalizing it. Finally, they offer a set of topics that can be pursued in future studies using the SEW approach.

Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms Theoretical Dimensions, Assessment Approaches, and Agenda for Future Research

A growing body of research shows that family firms are different from other organizations in significant ways. In this paper we review this literature by examining how family firms differ from nonfamily firms along five broad categories of managerial decisions. These categories encompass a set of key organizational choices concerning management processes, firm strategies, corporate governance, stakeholder relations and business venturing. We argue that socioemotional wealth or affective endowment of family owners explain many of these choices. We also examine some contingency factors (namely family stage, firm size, firm hazard, and the presence of nonfamily shareholders) that moderate the influence of socioemotional wealth preservation as a point of reference when making managerial decisions in family firms. Lastly, we explore the firm performance consequences of family ownership.

The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms

This paper compares the environmental performance of family and nonfamily public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions. We found that family-controlled public firms protect their socioemotional wealth by having a better environmental performance than their nonfamily counterparts, particularly at the local level, and that for the nonfamily firms, stock ownership by the chief executive officer (CEO) has a negative environmental impact. We also found that the positive effect of family ownership on environmental performance persists independently of whether the CEO is a family member or serves both as CEO and board chair.

Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?:

The behavioral agency model suggests that to preserve socioemotional wealth, loss-averse family firms usually invest less in R&D than nonfamily firms. However, behavioral agency model predictions a...

Variations in R&D Investments of Family and Nonfamily Firms: Behavioral Agency and Myopic Loss Aversion Perspectives

Family firms are thought to pursue nonfinancial goals that provide socioemotional wealth, but socioemotional wealth is feasible only with family control of the firm. Using prospect theory, we hypothesize that socioemotional wealth increases with the extent of current control, duration of control, and intentions for transgenerational control, thus adding to the price at which owners would be willing to sell their firms to nonfamily buyers. Findings from two countries show that current control has no impact, and duration of control has a mixed impact. However, intention for transgenerational control has a consistently positive impact on the perceived acceptable selling price.

/pdf/family-control-and-family-firm-valuation-by-family-ceos-the-4oof4n2ywj.pdf

Family Control and Family Firm Valuation by Family CEOs: The Importance of Intentions for Transgenerational Control

This study examines diversification decisions of family firms and suggests that on average family firms diversify less both domestically and internationally than non-family firms. When they do diversify, family firms tend to opt for domestic rather than international diversification, and those that go the latter route prefer to choose regions that are ‘culturally close’. Lastly, we find that family firms are more willing to diversify as business risk increases. The hypotheses are tested using a sample of 360 firms, 160 of them being family-controlled and the rest (200) non-family-controlled.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/joms_889.pdf?abstractid=1537413&mirid=5

Martín Larraza Kintana

Papers

Diversification Decisions in Family‐Controlled Firms

El proceso de gestión de los recursos humanos

El proceso de gestión de los recursos humanos