Agency theory and the family business

The conceptual domain of agency theory is one of the dominant organisational theory perspectives applied in current family business research (Chrisman et al., 2010). According to agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), agency costs generally arise due to individuals’ selfinterest and decision making based on rational thinking and oriented toward own preferences. With more people involved in decision making, such as through the separation of ownership and management, agency costs occur due to different preferences and information asymmetries between the owner (principal) and the employed management (agent) (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). In other words, agents take decisions based on their individual preferences (for example, short term, financial gains) instead of the owners’ preferences (for example, long term, sustainable development).

Behavioural agency theory and the family business

The behavioural agency theory was developed to provide a more comprehensive explanation and prediction of managerial risk taking, in response to some shortcomings of agency theory. In general, the theory offers explanations of why decision makers prefer some strategic choices to others. The use of behavioural agency theory in family business research has, however, been very limited. Family business scholars recently adapted this theory to construct the family business variant, the ‘socioemotional wealth’ construct, which offers better explanations for the risk taking and decision making behaviours of family firms. This chapter provides an overview of behavioural agency theory and the socioemotional wealth construct, explores how they have been used in family business research, and offers suggestions for how this theory can be used in further research to contribute to both the family business and the general management literature. Keywords: family business, behavioural agency theory, socioemotional wealth, family firm heterogeneity.

Comply-or-explain in Sweden : A study on the quality of non-compliance explanations

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the comply-or-explain principle in Sweden to determine if the flexible approach is functioning as in-tended. Research design: This paper scrutinizes the quality of the explanations with respect to the Swedish Corporate Governance Code. A quantitative research with a cross-sectional design has been performed and the data collection covers 241 companies listed on Nasdaq OMX Stockholm for the fiscal year of 2014. The secondary data has been gathered from corporate governance reports of the researched companies and analysed by using a tax-onomy of explanations. Findings: The report demonstrates that the comply-or-explain principle in Sweden is effective. A clear majority of the explanations, 71,8%, were deemed as informative, mean-ing that a large proportion of the Swedish firms are utilizing the flexible approach in an effective manner. However, one out of four explanations were classified as insufficient and we have thus provided recommendations in order for the code to become even more effective. Contribution: Our findings provide insights on how the comply-or-explain principle works in a country that is supposed to be a leading example of how the comply-or-explain approach should be implemented. This study should be of significance for policy makers considering that we have outlined how the principle works and provided recommenda-tions on how the Swedish Corporate Governance Code can be improved. Value: Our findings demonstrate that companies listed on Nasdaq OMX Stockholm pro-vide high quality explanations that can serve as an inspiration for companies listed in other countries. Furthermore, the results indicate that managers are likely to act within ethically desired norm. Considering the social implications, as Swedish firms are informative in terms of explanations, it minimizes the risk of firms acting dishonestly.