Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms

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

“…In this way, this study contributes to using better terminologies and better measurements of justice and fairness in the business ethics literature and in the family business literature. Second, this paper highlights the importance of incorporating socioemotional goals, particularly those that reflect a bright side of socioemotional wealth, in any fair process designed to build an ethical family business workplace where justice and fairness are prevalent, therefore heeding the growing calls to discuss how the pursuit of socioemotional goals affects the way family firms should be managed and directed (Samara et al, ; Williams et al, ) and allowing continuity with previous research on this important topic (Samara & Arenas, ; Van der Heyden, Blondel, & Carlock, ). Third, this paper offers managerial contributions by showing that professionalization processes that are appropriate to a non‐family business setting cannot be applied intact to a family business workplace.…”

“…After the seminal work of Gómez‐Mejía et al (), it is now widely acknowledged that family firms are ready to sacrifice economic goals in their pursuit of maintaining and increasing their socioemotional wealth (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez‐Mejia, ; Gómez‐Mejía et al, ; Samara & Arenas, ; Williams et al, ). Socioemotional wealth refers to the affective endowments that the family receives from the business and that makes the family firm pursue family‐centered non‐economic goals, labeled as socioemotional goals (Berrone et al, ; Gómez‐Mejía et al, ; Samara et al, ; Williams et al, ). Berrone et al () decompose socioemotional wealth into five dimensions: the preservation of family control and influence, family members’ identification with the firm, binding social ties, the emotional attachment to the business and the desire to renew family bonds through dynastic succession.…”

“…Indeed, family and business are two interconnected institutions that highly influence how family firms are managed and directed. In family firms, controlling owners pursue both economic and socioemotional (i.e., family‐centered) goals (Samara, Jamali, Sierra, & Parada ; Williams, Pieper, Kellermanns, & Astrachan, ). As a corollary, if rules and regulations are designed to reward employees who contribute exclusively to the family firm economic goals, then this can violate fairness perceptions of employees’ that contribute to the family firm socioemotional goals.…”

Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms

“…First, we have conceived strategic CSR as one‐dimensional. Nonetheless, recent evidence distinguishes between “internal” (Gosselt, van Rompay, & Haske, in press; Samara & Arenas, ) and “external” CSR (Samara, Jamali, Sierra, & Parada, ), depending if they address socio‐environmental concerns of inner (e.g., employees) or outer (e.g., customers) stakeholders. Due to their possible divergent effects on workers (Rodrigo & Arenas, ), we call scholars to combine this distinction with our strategic CSR approach, and conceive strategy‐CSR fit as bi‐dimensional given that these responsible actions could be oriented toward internal or external actors.…”

Law‐abiding organizational climates in developing countries: The role of institutional factors and socially responsible organizational practices

“…In the light of the unintended consequence of CSR certification and limited effectiveness of codes of ethics in moderating the relationship between perceived regulatory burden and law‐abiding climate, firm managers wanting to combat the adverse effect of a difficult institutional context on law‐abiding climate are faced with a dilemma. Managers should keep in mind the importance of aligning socially responsible practices (Weller, ), so that configurations of practices should be implemented in accordance with the firm's context (Samara, Jamali, Sierra, & Parada, ). A soft‐law approach in which firms implement self‐regulatory practices is a likely strategy in the light of the regulatory burden characteristic of developing countries.…”