Research at the family firm-Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) nexus lacks agreement about whether family firms are more or less socially responsible than their nonfamily counterparts, which leads discussion relating to the bright and dark side of socioemotional wealth (SEW). We add to this ongoing debate in two different ways.First, we build on family firm heterogeneity and argue for a gray side to SEW, located between the bright and dark sides that is dependent upon the kind of family firm ownership. Second, we assume that prior research on a diverse set of CSR behaviors may, to some extent, explain the contradicting results; thus, we propose going back a step and focusing on management's attention to CSR as an important antecedent of CSR behavior. By analyzing the letters to the shareholders of German HDAX firms from 2003 to 2012, this study finds that family ownership positively affects management's attention to CSR, mainly driven by founders and family foundations. The research adds to our understanding of the family firm-CSR nexus by scrutinizing the role SEW plays in management's attention to CSR when it comes to family firm heterogeneity.

Purpose In times of crisis, the fundamental principles of companies erode, leading to strategy shifts. This paper aims to examine whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on management’s agenda in times of crisis, indicating CSR embeddedness into corporate strategy. The focus is on the four pillars of CSR: social, environment, economy and governance. Design/methodology/approach Starting points are competing hypotheses based on shareholder and stakeholder theory. Chief executive officer (CEO) letters to shareholders of German HDAX firms from 2003 to 2012 are analyzed by means of computer-aided text analysis. Findings The authors find that CEOs talk less about CSR in times of crisis, especially about social and governance issues, indicating that CSR is not fully embedded into corporate strategy, and that, in times of crisis, other aspects gain more importance on management’s agenda. Research limitations/implications CEO communication is an indicator for management’s attention. Less talk about CSR in times of crisis does not automatically indicate less real CSR activity. This study is a starting point for analyses of the discrepancy between both, if any exists. Practical implications Managers should regard CSR as a strategic and trust enhancing element and stick to CSR even when under pressure from market distortions. Social implications Environment issues – exposed to companies’ attention for a long time – are embedded into corporate strategy. More research and management attention is essential to get the other CSR aspects woven into company DNA as well. Originality/value The paper is the first to research CSR in times of crisis in depth: CSR as umbrella covers social, environment, economy and governance issues. The institutional level of analysis ensures that implications for the business-society link are central.

Prior empirical studies provide evidence that the learning-curve perspective from manufacturing settings is not directly applicable to strategic management settings. In the latter case learning relates to the quality rather than to the quantity of experience. Regarding the antecedents of organizational learning especially, there are still unanswered questions remaining; for example, the questions what kind of experience has a positive effect on performance and what kind of experience is more of a hindrance than a help. This becomes obvious when looking at acquisitions as examples of strategic management decisions. Results of prior empirical studies analyzing the relationship of acquisition experience and acquisition performance have been mixed. By introducing the concept of strategic consistency, we intend to facilitate a better understanding of the kind of experience necessary for organizational learning. Therefore, we measure the concordance and frequency of change in strategic actions. Employing a sample of 379 acquisition series, we find evidence for a positive transfer effect of strategic consistency within series and, therefore, a positive relationship between strategic consistency and acquisition performance.

No abstract

Chief executive officer (CEO) commitment to the status quo (CSQ) is expected to play an important role in any firm's strategic adaptation. CSQ is used often as an explanation for strategic change occurring after CEO succession: new CEOs are expected to reveal a lower CSQ than established CEOs. Although widely accepted in the literature, this relationship remains imputed but unobserved. We address this research gap and analyze whether new CEOs reveal lower CSQ than established CEOs. By analyzing the letters to the shareholders of German HDAX firms, we find empirical support for our hypothesis of a lower CSQ of newly appointed CEOs compared to established CEOs. However, our detailed analyses provide a differentiated picture. We find support for a lower CSQ of successors after a forced CEO turnover compared to successors after a voluntary turnover, which indicates an influence of the mandate for change on the CEO's CSQ. However, against the widespread assumption, we do not find support for a lower CSQ of outside successors compared to inside successors, which calls for deeper analyses of the insiderness of new CEOs. Further, our supplementary analyses propose a revised tenure effect: the widely assumed relationship of an increase in CSQ when CEO tenure increases might be driven mainly by the event of CEO succession and may not universally and continuously increase over time, pointing to a ''window of opportunity'' to initiate strategic change shortly after the succession event. By analyzing the relationship between CEO succession and CEO CSQ, our results contribute to the CSQ literature and provide fruitful impulses for the CEO succession literature.