This paper examines differences in corporate social performance between family and nonfamily firms. The authors hypothesize that family firms will engage in more CSP activity than nonfamily firms due to their long-term orientation. They also hypothesize that family firms will benefit specific stakeholders like employees, consumers, and the community more than nonfamily firms. The authors test these hypotheses using social performance data from 1991-2005. They find partial support for their hypotheses, with family firms demonstrating more overall social initiatives and benefiting some stakeholder groups more than nonfamily firms. The level of family involvement is also positively correlated with higher social initiatives and fewer concerns for certain stakeholders.

1. Financial accounting analysis
Reading Report:
BABACAR SECK
M2 EFA
A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to
Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms
John B. Bingham; W. Gibb Dyer Jr.; Isaac Smith; Gregory L. Adams.
This paper aims to examine differences in corporate social performance (CSP) activity
between family and nonfamily firms. More specifically, the main objective of this paper is to
examine whether family firms, vis-à-vis nonfamily firms, benefit specific stakeholders and
how the level of family and founder involvement in family firms induces CSP activity.
Therefore, in order to explain differences in the extent to which a family is connected with a
firm and the firm’s CSP, the authors have used identity orientation logic. Indeed, the method
they use to shed the light certain firm characteristics and behaviors based on how
organizations view and interact with their constituencies is innovative by the fact that, it
extends beyond, treatments of stakeholder theory or philosophical. More specifically this tool
allows them to reinforce the nomological network of descriptive stakeholder research and
organizational identity theory.
As far as they are concerned, the particular identity orientation that family firms adopt may
explain their approach to stakeholder management in their CSP activities. Therefore, they use
this argumentation as the basis for a set of testable hypotheses about the CSP activities of
family firms versus nonfamily firms.
Thesis 1: family firms are less likely to maximize their own welfare at the expense of
stakeholders and will engage in more CSP activity than nonfamily firms.
Thesis 2: family firms will benefit specific stakeholder beneficiaries.
Indeed, for the first thesis, they argue that cetiris paribus, nonfamily firms are more
likely than family firms to adopt an individualistic identity orientation. Compared to
nonfamily firms, for instance, family firms have a particular incentive to take a long-term
1

2. Financial accounting analysis
perspective and perpetuate their business for future generations consistent to the prior findings
(Gallo and Vilaseca, 1996; McConaughy and Phillips, 1999). Therefore, family firms are
likely to engage in higher levels of CSP by the fact that they will take a less individualistic
view of stakeholder relationships than nonfamily firms.
Hypothesis 1: Family firms will demonstrate significantly more positive CSP social initiatives
toward stakeholders than will nonfamily firms.
Hypothesis 2: Family firms will demonstrate significantly fewer CSP social concerns toward
takeholders than will nonfamily firms.
In respect to the second thesis they adopt identity orientation logic to describe the
manner that stakeholders, who benefit from CSP activity, might differ between family and
nonfamily firms.
In this way the main idea is that relationally oriented firms will manage their internal
and external stakeholder relationships similarly, based on a consistent set of goals, standards,
and accepted codes of conduct for all stakeholders whose welfare the firm seeks to improve.
In addition, consistent to relational orientation logic, family firms would likely take a more
proactive stance toward the development of higher quality and safer products for consumers,
than would nonfamily firms. Moreover, by the fact that family firms narrow their focus to
specific stakeholder groups who are more consistent with the characteristics of the firm,
causing or allowing harm to employee, consumer, or community stakeholders is also less
likely to occur.
Therefore, another hypothesis rises:
Hypothesis 3: Family firms will demonstrate more employee, consumer, and community
social initiatives than nonfamily firms.
Here they examine more closely the way family firms exhibit socially responsible
behavior to benefit stakeholder groups. In other words, they integrate the role of family
involvement and adopt a more nuanced view of why family involvement matters.
The main finding of hypothesis 3 is that greater family involvement in a family firm
will likely be positively related to a firm’s support for the community, its employees, and the
providing of quality products to consumers. Consistent with that logic, they hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 4: The greater a family firm’s family involvement, the higher the number of
community, employee, and consumer social initiatives (and fewer of the respective concerns)
will be.
2

3. Financial accounting analysis
Hypothesis 5: The greater the involvement of the founder in a family firm, the higher the
number of community, employee, and consumer social initiatives (and fewer of the respective
concerns) there will be.
They empirically examine examine their hypotheses in the S&P 500 during the period of
1991–2005. Then, they operationalized their dependent variable of CSP using the social
responsibility category ratings from the Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD) social
performance database.
Concerning their results, they found for hypothesis 1 and 2 that, family firms are significantly
related to higher total social initiatives. Thereby the first hypothesis was confirmed but not
hypothesis 2. Regarding Hypothesis 3, it was partially supported that family firms would
demonstrate greater specific initiatives and fewer of the respective concerns than nonfamily
firms. In addition Hypothesis 4 follows the same tandancy than Hypothesis 3 because it is
partially supported by the results. In fact for this hypothesis greater family involvement would
be correlated with a higher number of social initiatives and a fewer number of the respective
concerns. At last, we found limited support for Hypothesis 5 (i.e., for product concerns) that
greater founder involvement in a family firm would be associated with a higher number of
social initiatives and a fewer number of the respective concerns.
3