Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

This theoretical paper is offered in the spirit of advancing the debate on the socioemotional wealth (SEW) construct and its impact on how family firms conceptualize and practise corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study builds on Kellermanns et al.'s (Entrep Theory Pract 36(6):1175-1182, 2012) claim that the SEW dimensions can be positively and negatively valenced as well as makes a distinction between the selective and instrumental approach to CSR and the holistic and normative one. Drawing on these considerations, it provides a theoretical underpinning in favour of the view that SEW has ambivalent nature and therefore can produce detrimental outcomes for stakeholders of family companies. In this way, the study challenges the implicit assumption prevalent in the literature that SEW is ''a prosocial and positive stimulus''. Crucially, it expands on the SEW construct by arguing that, given its ambivalent nature, SEW, as such, is at odds with the ''strategic, whole-business view of responsibility''. Consequently, it posits that family firmsbecause of their concern with SEW-may be more likely to adopt the instrumental and selective rather than strategic (holistic) and normative approach. Hence, it also makes the case for regarding the latter as a reference point to investigate the family company's attitude towards social responsibility. It concludes by summarising the argument and offering future research avenues.

Sustainability Reporting in Family Firms: A Panel Data Analysis

“…Society is not a homogeneous group of individuals with identical expectations and a firm's different groups of stakeholders are members of society [96]. Businesses seek legitimacy by different stakeholder groups depending on how they help to achieve the firm's goals.…”

Justice versus fairness in the family business workplace: A socioemotional wealth approach

“…The discussion of justice and fairness between family and non‐family employees has been subject to extensive debate during the last two decades (e.g., Barnett & Kellermanns, ; Chrisman et al, ; Chua et al, ; Cruz, Larraza‐Kintana, Garcés‐Galdeano, & Berrone, ; Jennings et al, ; Lubatkin et al, ; Samara & Arenas, ). At first, it has been argued that the preferential treatment of family employees will automatically violate norms of justice and will negatively affect fairness perceptions of non‐family employees, eventually leading to various negative work performance outcomes (e.g., Barnett & Kellermanns, ; Cruz et al, ; Jaskiewicz et al, ; Kidwell, Eddleston, Cater, & Kellermanns, ; Zientara, ). Indeed, providing preferential treatment to family employees has been argued to decrease non‐family employees commitment and motivation (Barnett & Kellermanns, ), to threaten the family firm reputation (Cruz et al, ; Zientara, ) and to eventually decrease overall firm performance (Chua et al, ; Verbeke & Kano, ).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility of Public Administration through Eyes of Enterprises

“…(Ubrežiová et al, 2015) Another interesting categorization would be in family and non-family businesses. Zientara (2017) cited O'Boyle et al (2010) in his article: "…members of family firms are more likely to view the business as an extension of themselves. As a result, they are more likely to avoid situations that may bring negative perceptions to their organizations" (O'Boyle et al 2010, p. 4 in Zientara, 2017.…”