Why do family firms congregate in certain industries?

We propose that family firm involvement and performance across industries is not random and is related to specific industry conditions. Using the population of listed companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange over the period 1997-2007 we find that family firms are more involved in industries with more fixed assets, consistent with the long-term view of family owners, and in industry conditions that make it potentially easier for family owners to consume private benefits of control. Overall, we document a positive relationship between family firm involvement and performance, which indicates a net advantage for family firm shareholders in industries where family firms congregate. However, we also find that family firm performance is negatively affected when family firms use more debt and maintain a higher control wedge than their industry counterparts.

Ownership concentration:'Private benefits of control' and debt financing

Building on the ‘law and economics’ literature, this paper analyses corporate governance implications of debt financing in an environment where a dominant owner is able to extract ex ante ‘private benefits of control’. Ownership concentration may result in lower efficiency, measured as a ratio of a firm’s debt to investment, and this effect depends on the identity of the largest shareholder. Moreover, entrenched dominant shareholder(s) may be colluding with fixed-claim holders in extracting ‘control premium’. One of possible outcomes is a ‘crowding out’ of entrepreneurial firms from the debt market, and this is supported by evidence from the transition economies.

Ownership Structure, Board Composition and Entrepreneurship : Evidence from Family Firms and Venture-Capital Backed Firms

The purpose of this article is to investigate how ownership structure, especially family and/or venture-capital involvement, as well as entrepreneurial activities, defined as strategic change and renewal, help explain the involvement of independent members on boards of directors. The CEOs of 2,455 small and medium-sized, private enterprises from practically all industries were contacted in a telephone survey, resulting in an exceptionally high response rate. The findings reveal that family firms are more reluctant to involve independent directors on their boards than non-family firms that presence of venture capitalists increases the frequency of independent board members and that ownership has an impact on board roles. The results do not support the hypothesised relationship that independent directors enhance entrepreneurial activities. One implication of our study is that the often-argued-for strategic contribution of outsiders to the boards in family firms may be overemphasised. Another implication is that family firms that choose to acquire additional capital should be aware that this could result in a change in the board composition and the loss of control of the business. However, new and external owners’ inclusion on the board seems to be negotiable since there are also venture capitalists that do not insist on board representation.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : a case study in growth and survival

Entrepreneurial marketing has gained popularity in both the entrepreneurship and marketing disciplines in recent times. The success of ventures that have pursued what are considered non-traditional marketing approaches has been attributed to entrepreneurial marketing practices. Despite the multitude of marketing concepts and models, there are prominent venture successes that do not conform to these and have thus been put in the ''entrepreneurial'' box. One only has to look to the ''Virgin'' model to put this in context. Branson has proven for example that not ''sticking to the knitting'' can work with the ways the Virgin portfolio has been diversified. Consequently, an entrepreneurial orientation is considered a desirable philosophy and has become prominent in such industries as airlines and information technology. Miles and Arnold (1991) found that entrepreneurial orientation is positively correlated to marketing orientation. They propose that entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic response by firms to turbulence in the environment. While many marketing successes are analysed in hindsight using traditional marketing concepts and strategies, there are those that challenge standard marketing textbook recommendations. Marketing strategy is often viewed as a process of targeting, segmenting and positioning (STP). Academics and consultants advocate this approach along with the marketing and business plans. The reality however is that a number of businesses do not practice these and pursue alternative approaches. Other schools of thought and business models have been developing to explain differences in orientation such as branding (Keller 2001), the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and effectuation logic (Sarasvathy 2001). This indicates that scholars are now looking to cognate fields to explain a given phenomenon beyond their own disciplines. Bucking this trend is a growing number of researchers working at the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing. There is now an emerging body of work dedicated to this interface, hence the development of entrepreneurial marketing as an alternative to the traditional approaches. Hills and Hultman (2008:3) define entrepreneurial marketing as ''a spirit, an orientation as well as a process of passionately pursuing opportunities and launching and growing ventures that create perceived customer value through relationships by employing innovativeness, creativity, selling, market immersion, networking and flexibility.'' Although it started as a special interest group, entrepreneurial marketing is now gaining recognition in mainstream entrepreneurship and marketing literature. For example new marketing textbooks now incorporate an entrepreneurial marketing focus (Grewal and Levy 2008). The purpose of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurial approaches are used by entrepreneurs and their impact on the success of marketing activities. Methodology/Key Propositions In order to investigate this, we employ two cases: 42Below, vodka producers from New Zealand and Penderyn Distillery, whisky distillers from Wales. The cases were chosen based on the following criteria. Firstly, both companies originate from small economies. Secondly, both make products (spirits) from locations that are not traditionally regarded as producers of their flagship products and thirdly, the two companies are different from each other in terms of their age. Penderyn is an old company established in 1882, whereas 42Below was founded only in 1999. Vodka has never been associated with New Zealand. By the same token, whisky has always been associated with Scotland and Ireland but never been with Wales. Both companies defied traditional stereotypes in marketing their flagship products and found international success. Using a comparative a case study approach, we use Covin and Slevin's (1989) set of items that purport to measure entrepreneurial orientation and apply a qualitative lens on the approaches of both companies. These are: 1. cultural emphases on innovation and R&D 2. high rate of new product introduction 3. bold, innovative product development 4. initiator proactive posture 5. first to introduce new technologies and products 6. competitive posture toward competitor 7. strong prolictivity for high risk, high return projects 8. environment requires boldness to achieve objectives 9. when faced with risk, adopts aggressive, bold posture. Results and Implications We find that both companies have employed entrepreneurial marketing approaches but with different intensities. While acknowledging that they are different from the norm, the specifics of their individual approaches are dissimilar. Both companies have positioned their products at the premium end of their product categories and have emphasised quality and awards in their communication strategies. 42Below has carved an image of irreverence and being non-conformist. They have unashamedly utilised viral marketing and entered international markets by training bartenders and hosting unconventional events. They use edgy language such as vodka university, vodka professors and vodka ambassadors. Penderyn Distillery has taken a more traditional approach to marketing its products and portraying romantic images of age-old tradition of distilling as key to their positioning. Both companies enjoy success as evidenced by industry awards and international acclaim.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : growth and survival

Family businesses dominate in a majority of economies (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma, 2005; Morck and Yeung, 2004). As entrepreneurial activities have been shown to be central to economic growth it is essential that family businesses, irrespective of ownership patterns, not only survive but also grow thus growing the economy overall. While a great deal is known about entrepreneurial activities and a body of knowledge is being developed in relation to entrepreneurial processes in family firms, more needs to be understood in relation to the dynamics of entrepreneurial activities at the individual family firm level. One area of particular interest is the dynamics within the business and the family and how these dynamics impact upon entrepreneurial activities. Specifically how relationships between and among family members engaged in the business can interact with professional non-family member senior executives. The senior executives can actively use their positions in such ways that initiatives suggested by family members are less successful than they might be. This paper addresses how ‘family’ aspects of a business can assist or impede the entrepreneurial activities of individuals. It takes into account some of the unique features of family businesses – such as the importance of ‘familiness’ as a competitive advantage; the direct links between ownership and control of a business and the recognition (often implicit) that individuals in families do make a difference to how the business functions (Habbershon and Williams, 1999, Sharma, 2004; and Tokarczyk, Hansen Green, and Down, 2007). This emphasis on individuals in families fits well with the idea of entrepreneur as individual, as expressed by Schumpeter (1934), Baumol et al (2007). The theoretical approach that adopted to explore the dynamics of processes occurring within family firms is structuration theory combined with a theory of embeddeness (Dacin, Ventresca and Beal, 1999; Giddens, 1979, 1984, Jack and Anderson, 2002; and Sarason, Dean and Dillard, 2006).

Family representatives in family firms

Research Question/Issue: Family control in family firms can extend beyond the direct involvement of family members, but identifying these mechanisms is difficult in most markets. We utilize unique disclosures made by Taiwanese firms to examine the role played by family representatives in listed family firms. Family representatives are non-family members that represent the controlling family’s indirect shareholdings in the firm. We examine whether family representatives are used in the same manner as family members and whether they provide net benefits or costs to shareholders. Research Findings/Insights: In our sample of listed family firms, we find that omitting family representatives understates the influence of controlling families by 46 percent. We show that family representatives are associated with net costs to shareholders, but to a lesser extent than family members. We also find that controlling families use family members and family representatives differently. Family members are more involved in older family firms and in firms founded by the family. Family representatives are more involved in acquired and second generation family firms and in larger firms with more fixed assets. Theoretical/Academic Implications: We apply agency theory to the use of family representatives and show that family representatives are being used by controlling families to extend their influence within their firms, increasing agency costs to minority shareholders. Practitioner/Policy Implications: For policymakers, our analysis shows that disclosure of family member and representative relationships within firms is important and value-relevant to investors. Furthermore, our results suggest that firm performance could be improved by limiting the involvement of family members and family representatives in family firms.

Are family firms really more socially responsible?

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L. and Berrone, P. (2014), Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38: 1295–1316, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12125. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk-Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk-oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation-related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium-sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk-taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium-sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk-taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk-taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk-taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk-taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm-specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.

Ready for a crisis? How supervisory boards affect the formalized crisis procedures of small and medium-sized family firms in Germany

Overcoming a crisis situation in which the socioemotional wealth (SEW) of a family is at risk can be threatened by a lack of formal crisis procedures, which can increase the probability of organizational decline. Thus, not being prepared for a crisis situation may be a critical factor in the long-term survival of family firms. From a corporate governance perspective, supervisory boards may achieve higher levels of crisis readiness. Applying the resourced-based view and SEW theory, we analyze the relationship between family ownership and formalized crisis procedures in 150 small and medium-sized German firms. Our results show that formalized crisis procedures decrease as family ownership increases. Including supervisory boards in our analysis, we find a significant moderating effect of supervisory boards on the relationship between family ownership and formalized crisis procedures. Specifically, our results suggest that family firms with supervisory boards show similar levels of formalized crisis procedures as non-family firms with supervisory boards. In contrast, family firms without supervisory boards exhibit lower levels of formalized crisis procedures compared with non-family firms without supervisory boards. We also discuss managerial implications, limitations, and future research.

Value Creation in Family Firms: A Model of Fit

We propose a framework describing how family ownership can create or destroy value depending on the goals, resources, and governance of the family firm, which are each influenced by the family owners. Taking a contingency perspective, we suggest that a fit is required for all three elements – family- influenced goals, resources, and governance – for the family firm to flourish over generations. We conclude with a suggested research agenda indicating research opportunities at the nexus of these identified elements. Further we provide some guiding questions for practitioners that might stimulate fruitful discussions among family firm owners and managers about how to realize ‘‘fit.’’

The effect on the performance of listed family and non-family firms

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the ownership of public firms is related to accounting and market performance, comparing family and non-family listed firms. Design/methodology/approach: We use regression analysis, considering a sample of Portuguese family and non-family firms for the period between 1999 and 2010. Findings: Overall, the results show that family firms are older, are more indebted and have higher debt costs than non-family firms. However, they present lower levels of risk. The evidence suggests that family firms outperform non-family firms when we consider a market performance measure. The market performance of family-controlled firms is more sensitive to the crisis periods and age, compared to their counterparts. The empirical findings suggest that under economic adversity, the performance is especially compromised by the firms’ age. Research limitations/implications: A limitation of this study is the small size of the sample, which derives from the small size of the Portuguese stock market, the Euronext Lisbon. Originality/value: This paper offers some insights on the ownership of public firms and firm performance by investigating a small European economy. The study also contributes to the stream of firm performance, considering new independent variables as determinants of firm performance, such as operational risk. Finally, the study examines the interaction between ownership and performance under both steady and adverse economic conditions, giving the opportunity to analyze whether firm performance differs according to market conditions.

Export Behavior and Board Independence in Colombian Family Firms: The Reverse Causality Relationship

In the context of greater market liberalization in Latin America, one issue that merits greater attention for empirical investigation is the international expansion of family-owned business. Specifically, the relationship between export behavior, family control and board composition in the Latin American context is absent in the literature. Using a large and unique database from Colombian firms (33,249 firms in the period of 2008 to 2013), we provide insightful information on the determinants of export behavior of family firms in emerging markets. Our empirical test confirms an endogenous relation between boards’ composition (specifically the presence of independent members) and export behavior in family firms. Firms with a higher participation of independent board members are more likely to exhibit higher levels of exports. A "virtuous cycle" was also detected whereby the introduction of independent members on the board can be expected to boost export behavior, which in turn will encourage the increase of independent members on the board of private firms.

Long-term Success of Family Firms: Investigating Specific Aspects of Firm-level Entrepreneurship and Individual-level Antecedents

Long-term success of family firms is of utmost social and economic importance. Three of its determinants are in the center of this Dissertation: firmlevel entrepreneurial orientation (EO), managers' entrepreneurial behavior, and value-creating attitudes of non-family employees. Each determinant and respective research gaps are addressed by one paper of this cumulative dissertation. Referring to firm-level EO, scholars claim that EO is a main antecedent to firms' both short- and long-term success. However, family firms seem to be successful across generations despite rather low levels of EO. The first paper addresses this paradox by investigating EO patterns of long-lived family firms in three Swiss case studies. The main finding is that the key to success is not to be as entrepreneurially as possible all the time, but to continuously adapt the EO profile depending on internal and external factors. Moreover, the paper suggest new subcategories to different EO dimensions. With regard to entrepreneurial behavior of managers, there is a lack of knowledge how individual-level and organizational level factors affect its evolvement. The second paper addresses this gap by investigating a sample of 403 middle-level managers from both family and non-family firms. It introduces psychological ownership of managers as individual-level antecedent and investigates the interaction with organizational factors. As a central insight, management support is found to strengthen the psychological ownership-entrepreneurial behavior relationship. The third paper is based on the fact that employees' justice perceptions are established antecedents of value-creating employee attitudes such as affective commitment and job satisfaction. Even though family firms are susceptible to nonfamily employees´ perceptions of injustice, corresponding research is scarce. Moreover, the mechanism connecting justice perceptions and positive outcomes is still unclear. Addressing these gaps, the analysis of a sample of 310 non-family employees reveals that psychological ownership is a mediator in the relationships between distributive justice perceptions and both affective commitment and job satisfaction. Altogether, the three papers offer valuable contributions to family business literature with respect to EO, entrepreneurial behavior, and value-creating employee attitudes. Thus, they increase current understanding about important determinants of family firms' long-term success, while opening up numerous ways of future research.