The problem of social sustainability is challenging particularly from the point of view of measurement. Nevertheless, for its full understanding, it must be described also in the connection with the social role of entrepreneurship, particularly entrepreneurship of family owned companies. However, a full description of the issue also requires its explanation in the light of the gender diversity of human resources in these companies, with a special emphasis on managerial positions.
2.1. Social Sustainability and Its Measurement
The current situation of global society is defined by a health crisis caused by one of the deadliest infectious diseases on the planet [
22], which in many ways overshadowed the already occurred economic, ecological, and climate crisis and necessary transformations in various social areas to ensure the quality of life and care of the environment [
23]. Moreover, the pandemic itself has deepened the economic and ecological crisis and generated a series of serious social problems, which have not been mitigated, neutralized or solved [
24] over the last decade, even though the idea of sustainability has been integrated into the life of global society for a long time. This is based on a simple concept of equilibrium between competing economic and environmental goals as a predisposition for long-term success. However, achieving such a condition is far more complicated because it requires balance of three interconnected dimensions: environmental, economic and social. The system of this complexity is, therefore, difficult to define or measure in a consistent manner [
25,
26]. Despite this intricacy, there is a general agreement on the fact that the conception of sustainable development consists of three structuring elements, which are identical to the stated dimensions [
27] of sustainability. These cannot be considered in an isolated, individual, exclusive, or dominant way but as a concrete unit. However, academics tend to offer a reductionist view on the economic nature, seeking to maintain the levels of economic growth and supposed social development [
23]. There is also a tendency to narrow the general view on sustainability as on economic and ecological sustainability, with social aspects of the sustainability debate and practices coming marginally compared to the attention that the other two are receiving [
28], in addition, the social dimension is underestimated and overshadowed by the other two [
29] even though the social part of company responsibility is the most visible for various groups of stakeholders. On the other hand, the financial market is pushing the development of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), which has led to the rise of Corporate Sustainability Systems (CSS) as a tool that rates corporate performance of sustainability [
30].
Stakeholders can be understood as “any group or individual who is affected or can affect the organization’s objectives” [
31]. Literature regarding their influence on organizations in the context of sustainability has shown that this influence can take the form of a contribution of resources through engagement with organizations [
32]. Stakeholders as interested parties in participation could be used as means of selecting relevant indicators to offer a range of advantages. It ensures that the indicators accurately measure what the local people consider as necessary, and if well applied, the beneficiaries may develop the capacity to deal with future problems [
33]. The United Nations Environment Programme [
34] has set out categorization of social criteria based on stakeholders with the methodology aimed at employees, local community, society, consumers and value chain actors. In connection with this, Labuschagne et al. [
35,
36] developed frameworks from which the indicators could be derived and states that companies can affect four aspects of social sustainability: own employees; external population, also referred to as a local community; stakeholders’ participation with a focus on sharing information and inclusion in decision-making; and the fourth being the macro-social performance. The category of macro-social performance goes beyond the traditional social scope by including socio-economic issues such as taxation, corruption and property rights [
37]. When considering the theoretical framework, the social sustainability also includes social life cycle assessment, sustainability certification systems, and corporate sustainability systems [
38]. Furthermore, expanded sustainability measures have covered everything from the specific themes of health and education to the more complex issues of social cohesion and equity. The extent of the problem of social sustainability resulted in struggles in its defining and measuring, which led to slower incorporation of the initiatives involving social outcomes [
39] into the corporate practice and research as well. Still, sustainable social development has been proposed to replace the current concept of sustainable development and other related topics as sustainable human development [
40] and socio-ecological transitions to sustainability [
41].
Specific indicators of social sustainability monitoring are exceedingly difficult to define because, to describe the situation of the company under investigation effectively and faithfully, the geographical and economic area in which it does business must be considered. One of the most complex sets of social indicators can be described by six groups [
42,
43] of these indicators regarding the groups of company’s stakeholders: indicators relating to the employee needs, customer needs, stockholder needs, supplier needs, community needs and public needs. The different approaches applied [
44] sorted three general orientations of such indicators: instrumentalist bridge (sustainable behavior change to achieve biophysical environmental goals), maintenance sustainability (preservation of socio-cultural patterns and practices when surrounded by a social and economic change) and value-focused development (addressing poverty and inequity by attending to issues of injustice). These categories can be summarized as indicators describing well-being, values, agency, inequality, power and justice [
45]. It is also vital to note that the effort to quantify social sustainability is an effort to measure the immeasurable [
46].
2.2. The Social Role of Entrepreneurship
Except for the various positive impacts, numerous incidents and breakdowns of social responsibility have also taken place during the entry into the country’s market by multinational corporations [
10]. In the process of internationalization, companies shift parts of their production lines to other countries or buy companies at multiple locations to cut production costs or expand into new markets. In some instances, this may also result in an unwanted increase in social influences [
47]. For this purpose, companies are creating and incorporating various social strategies to ensure social sustainability across all organizational units of a multinational corporation. However, it is complicated to pay the same attention to the social impact of their activities in every country they are operating in. It was even proven by Husted and Allen [
48] that multi-domestic and transnational MNCs place greater importance on country-specific or local social issues compared to global companies.
According to MNCs social strategy, which is an essential part of organizational strategy, the acceptance and cooperation of linked companies in the host country are required. This approach ensures stakeholders of the MNC that the specific rules and ethical concepts will be incorporated in every step of production, which can help to avoid the occurrence of scandals and cases. With the recent frequent occurrence of events such as the supply chain, companies ignoring consumer interests and over-squeezing employees, the research has been extended from green focus to include social aspects [
10]. There was even a secondary supply chain system constructed under the consideration of the manufacturer implementing socially responsible activities, which can vary in surplus profit share [
15]. In Slovakia, the business environment is characterized by high activity [
49] and organizations are forced to apply the socially responsible concepts by changing conditions in the business environment, which enhances the partnership between the business community and other sectors and brings a positive synergistic effect on the participating groups [
14]. We believe that by considering the role of foreign multinationals in the transformation of the Slovak economy, we can perceive MNCs as ambassadors of the social aspects of the entrepreneurship. Therefore, when public regulation and private ordering typical for industrialized country settings are lacking or muted, firms in emerging economies improvise alternatives to assure stakeholders that the family owned or family run firm is a common alternative [
50]. The importance of social activities in business and the need for social institutions in economies were proven by the institutional economics approach, which defines social institutions as written and unwritten “rules of the game”: laws, norms, beliefs, etc. [
21]. According to this, creating economic value is not separable from creating societal value in the concept of “Shared Value”, defined as corporate policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of the company, while simultaneously advancing the social and economic conditions in the communities that it sells and operates in [
51]. Based on this, five pillars on which the evolving social role of entrepreneurship can rest and have its impact were created [
52]: (1) connecting entrepreneurial activities with other societal efforts aimed at improving the quality of life, achieving progress, and enriching human existence; (2) identifying ways to reduce the dysfunctional effects of entrepreneurial activities on stakeholders; (3) redefining the scope of entrepreneurial activities as an academic arena; (4) recognizing entrepreneurship social multiplier; and (5) pursuing blended value at the organizational level and centering on balancing the creation of financial, social and environmental wealth. The social aspects of entrepreneurship place social good before economic prosperity, linking them to family business, which is based on the creation of social benefits for the family members.
2.3. Family Business and Its Social Essence
Family business as a specific form of business, ranks among the oldest and most widespread business forms worldwide [
53]. Research shows that in the world, family businesses make up 70–80% of all companies. In America, the most significant representation of family businesses can be found in Brazil, Chile, the USA and Venezuela. In Asia, it is India and Japan. In Europe, it dominated in Germany, Italy and Sweden [
54]. These companies are historically of high importance in a global economy since some family businesses have been operating for more than 100 years [
55]. Due to the expansion of family business in various forms around the world, there are many definitions for this type of businesses. Due to the different social and economic environments, these enterprises have been developed, and it is also difficult to describe them. Therefore, no unified definition to fully capture their inner diversity [
56] can be found.
However, the general definition of a family business brings together all the undertakings in which the family (1) has a majority stake in the ownership or control of the holding and at the same time, (2) at least two family members are directly involved in it. [
57]. It can be said that it is a business managed by family members or descendants of the founder of the enterprise [
58], which distinguishes them from ordinary market players and can give them a competitive advantage [
59]. The differentiating sign for family businesses from nonfamily businesses is to take care of the non-economic factors in management [
60,
61]. Nonfamily enterprises are defined as enterprises that do not meet the requirements for the family business, and their main objective is focused on the return on investment/profit achieved by aligning the objectives of owners with management [
62]. Compared to nonfamily businesses, family businesses are more conservative. They have a greater aversion to risk [
63] because they are oriented to traditions, greater reliability and better relations with customers [
58].
Family businesses are a very well-entrenched form of entrepreneurship, and many family businesses have gradually expanded from small entities into large multinationals. In countries where individual entrepreneurship was not restricted (as in emerging economies), large multinationals (e.g., Walmart (U.S.), Samsung Group (Korea) and Tata Group (India)) were developed [
64]. Other well-known multinational family businesses with global reach are for example, McDonald’s, IKEA, Nutella, Bosch, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Baťa, Henkel, C&A, etc. In Slovakia, we also find family businesses that started in the national environment and are now oriented towards foreign markets. These include businesses such as Lunter and Minit [
65]. In an international environment, it is crucial (to know), whether family businesses are prone to globalization [
66], since they are considered to be businesses that do not tend to globalization [
67,
68]. Internationalization is essential for owners and managers of enterprises [
69]. Still, in family businesses, the process of internationalization slows down regarding problems specific to this type of entrepreneurship, such as generational conflicts [
70] and poor managerial skills of the family members who run the business [
71]. However, flexibility and long-term orientation [
72], introduction of innovations [
53] and use of research and development [
73] can have a positive impact on this process. However, there are some factors against family friendly internationalization, too: family businesses do not invest in research and development of new products as much as nonfamily businesses [
74], and they have different socio-economic wealth [
75], which affects the CEOs’ decisions [
76]. The socio-economic wealth in family business focuses on non-cash bonuses [
75] such as identity, longevity, stocking of a positive image, reputation [
77], pride and satisfaction [
78].
Social responsibility refers also to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It is voluntary effort of firms that goes beyond the standard compliance framework [
79] and contains significant undertakings against stakeholders [
80]. Socially responsible activities focus on specific stakeholders’ issues [
81], and in family business, there is a vital question about social responsibility, whether it carries out more activities than nonfamily businesses [
82]. The answer to this question is complex and ambiguous. Outcomes indicate that family businesses carry out fewer socially responsible activities than nonfamily businesses, although they are expected to do the opposite [
83]. Weaker socially responsible activities in family businesses are related to the fact that the stakeholders in these enterprises are mainly family members [
84], which makes the socially responsible and sustainable activities operate under a different system than in the nonfamily businesses, since the family businesses emphasize emotional goals, which we call socio-emotional wealth (SEW) [
85]. Focus on the socio-emotional wealth (SEW) makes the family businesses more socially responsible and sustainable. However, at the same time, it causes attention to be diverted from other aspects of the CSR, and therefore, the family business has less environmental performance than the nonfamily business [
86]. Additionally, family owners care more about the company’s reputation [
87], which is also a key factor from the point of view of consumers [
88]. Thus, family business is expected to be more interested in the reputation of the company through CSR activities than the nonfamily one [
82], which also supports the fact, that family businesses are more interested in external stakeholders than in internal ones [
89]. It must be mentioned that for family businesses, carrying out such extent of CSR activities can be costly, which then has an impact on the growth of the business [
90]. However, chief executive officers (CEOs) of family businesses focus more on the business growth and competitive position than on investing in socially responsible activities [
82], which resulted in a condition that family businesses can be considered less socially responsible than nonfamily businesses [
80], since CEOs of family businesses were found to have a negative relationship with CSR activities. However, business founders have a positive relationship [
82]. There is also an opposite construct which indicates that family owned businesses pay more attention to corporate social activities [
86] and conduct more comprehensive range of them with enriched scope [
91], compared with nonfamily businesses, due to the involvement of the family members in the business [
92]. Based on the socio-emotional wealth (SEW), family businesses differ from nonfamily businesses in the implementation of CSR activities [
82]. Socially responsible activities are usually carried out through family foundations, where they seek to receive rewards for their SEW by engaging in social activities [
93] with an aim to contribute to the well-being of society, granted that the family foundations award more grants than the nonfamily ones [
94]. Even though the family businesses do have family foundations, their overall social responsibility is weaker than that of the nonfamily businesses [
95]. Regarding the described social essence of the family business and presented differences between family and nonfamily businesses, we set the fundamental assumption of this research that, “there is a difference between family and nonfamily business in the processing of socially sustainable activities”.
2.4. Gender of Manager and Its Impact on Social Issues of the Company
Long-term (often confusing and unfounded) respected gender stereotypes reinforce different views on a particular managerial position, when held by a man and when held by a woman. The woman was perceived passively in society from the very beginning and credited with gender roles [
96]. Apart from the differences in the nature and character of men and women, the description of these differences was based on the ability of genders to fulfill the need for travel and more active time at work on a particular position [
97], since prioritizing time spent with family was considered the main reason for women to give up managerial positions. This need for family life limits women’s career development, as they sacrifice their careers for the sake of family and often choose to take a part-time job [
86]. Therefore, family life affects women’s gain in work experience and time spent at work, which negatively affects their income and career development [
98]. Today, women are coming to the forefront by engaging in work more actively, especially in family businesses, where they can avoid gender barriers [
99], since in family businesses, succession plays a key role, when women are filling managerial positions [
60].
As was already mentioned, the chief executive officer (CEO) plays a vital role in the implementation of socially responsible aspects of business, in both family and nonfamily companies. Since the CEO’s influence is important in promoting the whole concept of corporate social responsibility [
100], it is considered more beneficial for CSR and business philanthropy, if the CEO is a woman [
101]. Research shows that women on the company’s board of directors are considered more philanthropic [
102]; however, they are influenced by CSR activities to a smaller extent than in nonfamily enterprises [
103]. The importance of the personality of CEO in the social strategy of the company was emphasized in the second fundamental assumption of this research that, “there is a difference between companies whose executive director is man and whose is woman, in the processing of socially sustainable activities”.
Thus far, there is considerable lack of research aimed at the differences between family and nonfamily female CEOs [
103], even though, the presence of women in family business management is higher, compared to the nonfamily’s [
104]. The first generation of management of the family business is connected with the head of the family, i.e., the man [
19] and therefore, concerning women, it is particularly typical that they work in management of family businesses in the subsequent generations [
105]. A total of 60% of women remain in the management of family businesses only after the first-generation exchanges [
60]. The proportion of women on leadership positions is 24% [
106] in family businesses, and this share has started to increase [
104]. It is even estimated that up to 33% of family businesses in the United States are run by women [
107]. However, if women are owners of a family business, up to 85% of them decline the post of the chief executive [
108]. Still, compared to nonfamily businesses, family businesses provide women with higher wages, more flexible working hours and better jobs [
109]. Additionally, women are more likely to be on managerial positions in family businesses than in nonfamily ones [
110]. Therefore, family businesses are the ideal solution to minimize the loss of female talent in the economy [
60]. Moreover, the effect is not the same in nonfamily businesses because only female managers who are family members prefer family interests, nonfamily female managers tend to focus on the interests of the business [
111]. Finally, it must be mentioned that the presence of women in CEO and other managerial positions has an impact on the socially responsible and philanthropic activities of companies [
101].
Since prehistoric times, there has been certain agreement between men and women on the division of labor and the opposition in society, which resulted in mutual relations between men and women [
112]. Over time, this division changes and so does the position of woman, which heads towards greater emancipation of woman and gender equality [
113]. However, despite progress, the way to real equality remains long and full of obstacles, starting with unbalanced representation of men and women in the labor market with an unsatisfactory small chance of improvement, especially on the top positions [
114]. Based on the persistent gender stereotypes [
115], women are described as moody and hysterical, with no talent for technical skills and logical thinking [
116]. Generally, they are linked to features [
117] such as sensitivity, empathy and ability to understand others, but the opinions on how they evaluate these qualities and perceive them on managerial positions differ. Ferguson and Fox [
118] also state that especially elderly men are often considered naturally authoritative according to the traditional models of managerial perception. Conversely, the older women are often the target of jokes or are ignored.
In connection with this, the third fundamental assumption of this research highlights the difference between companies with different predominant gender among employees in the processing of the socially sustainable activities.