Dutch Journal of Finance and Management

Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility
Ghina Molaeb 1, Ghena Awad 2 *
More Detail
1 Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Lebanese Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
* Corresponding Author
Research Article

Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 2022 - Volume 5 Issue 1, Article No: 20591

Published Online: 30 Jun 2022

Views: 403 | Downloads: 273

How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Molaeb & Awad, 2022)
Reference: Molaeb, G., & Awad, G. (2022). Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility. Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 5(1), 20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Molaeb G, Awad G. Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility. DUTCH J FINANCE MANA. 2022;5(1):20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Molaeb G, Awad G. Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility. DUTCH J FINANCE MANA. 2022;5(1), 20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
In-text citation: (Molaeb and Awad, 2022)
Reference: Molaeb, Ghina, and Ghena Awad. "Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility". Dutch Journal of Finance and Management 2022 5 no. 1 (2022): 20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
In-text citation: (Molaeb and Awad, 2022)
Reference: Molaeb, G., and Awad, G. (2022). Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility. Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 5(1), 20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
In-text citation: (Molaeb and Awad, 2022)
Reference: Molaeb, Ghina et al. "Family Control and Corporate Social Responsibility". Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, vol. 5, no. 1, 2022, 20591. https://doi.org/10.55267/djfm/13290
Corporate Social Responsibility adoption among organizations continues across different sects. This research explores the extent of Corporate Social Responsibility performance by family firms. Second, the researchers examined the extent of non-family firms' Corporate Social Responsibility performance. The adoption of Corporate Social Responsibility among organizations has continued to take pace. Corporate Social Responsibility involves activities that go beyond a business's everyday operations to focus on achieving social good. For instance, in order to show how companies, place much importance on Corporate Social Responsibility, the findings expressed in different studies show that Corporate Social Responsibility contributes towards increased stock returns, increased access to financing, creates an opportunity for companies to merge, and creates an avenue for firms to reduce on the cost of their capital. However, only a few studies have shown that Corporate Social Responsibility depends on a few determinants such as regulations, characteristics of chief executive officers, political affiliations, and national institutions. The research adopted questionnaire instruments to collect primary data through a survey approach from respondents from family and non-family-controlled companies. The findings showed that family firms recorded lower Corporate Social Responsibility performance than non-family-controlled firms.
  • Abdullah, H., & Valentine, B. (2009). Fundamental and ethics theories of corporate governance. Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, 4(4), 88-96.
  • Adawi, M., & Rwegasira, K. (2012). The Influence of Patterns of Ownership Structure on Transparency in Corporate Governance (Evidence from United Arab Emirates Listed Companies). Journal of Transnational Management, 17(4), 239–257.
  • Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2004). Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science, 49, 209–237.
  • Anderson, R., Mansi, S., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding family ownership and the agency Cost of debt. Journal of Finance and Economics, 68, 263–285
  • Barth, E., Gulbrandsen, T., Schønea, P. (2005). Family ownership and productivity: the role of owner-management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11,107–127
  • Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods, design, and analysis. 12th ed. Pearson Education Ltd.
  • Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355-370.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  • Fernando, S., & Lawrence, S. (2014). A theoretical framework for CSR practices: integrating legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory. Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 10(1), 149-178.
  • Ferreira Caixe, D., & Krauter, E. (2013). The Influence of the Ownership and Control Structure on Corporate Market Value in Brazil. Revista Countabilities & Finances - USP, 24(62), 142–153
  • Hirschman, C. E. (2014). Social contract theory and semiotics of guns in America. Social Semiotics, 24(5), 541-560
  • Jahn, J., & Bruhl, R. (2018). How Friedman’s view on individual freedom relates to stakeholder’s theory and social contract theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 153: 41-52
  • Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360
  • Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods & Techniques. 2nd ed. New Age International Publishers.
  • Lybaert, N. (2014). The Influence of Family Involvement on CSR Disclosure. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 168–175.
  • Mahoney, L. & Roberts, R.W. (2007). Corporate social performance, financial performance and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum, 31: 233-253.
  • Mallin, C. (2002). The relationship between corporate governance, transparency and financial disclosure. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10: 253-255.
  • Mallin, C.A. (2006). Handbook on International Corporate Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.
  • Mallin, C.A. (2007). Corporate Governance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 603-609.
  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117-127.
  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S, & Wright, P.M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1-18.
  • Saharan, T., & Singh, N. (2015). Are values driving Indian consumers to support firms’ CSR initiatives? Decision (0304-0941), 42(4), 379–391.
  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. 5th ed. Pearson Education Limited
  • Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd
  • Shatila, K., & Alozian, M. (2019). Factors affecting employee turnover: the case of Lebanese retail companies. Journal of Human Resources, 7(2), 5-13.
  • Ushakov, D., & Shatila, K. (2021). The impact of workplace culture on employee retention: An empirical research from Lebanon. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business (JAFEB), 8, 541-551.
  • Ushakov,D Cherkasova,L and Shatila, K “Environmental management system and its impact on productivity,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 937, no. 2, Article ID 022037, p. 022037, 2021.
  • Vazquez, P. (2018). Family Business Ethics: At the Crossroads of Business Ethics and Family Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 691–709
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.