Next Article in Journal
Development of Coloured Stoneware Bodies through the Incorporation of Industrial Cr/Ni Electroplating Sludge
Next Article in Special Issue
Corporate Social Responsibility and Family Business in the Time of COVID-19: Changing Strategy?
Previous Article in Journal
Games on Climate Change: Identifying Development Potentials through Advanced Classification and Game Characteristics Mapping
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainability Practices in Australian Firms: The Effect of Family Control and the Generational Stage
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/su13041998
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental and Social Goals in Spanish SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Family Influence

by
Alvaro Rojas
* and
Daniel Lorenzo
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Cadiz, 11002 Cádiz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1998; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041998
Submission received: 22 December 2020 / Revised: 25 January 2021 / Accepted: 9 February 2021 / Published: 12 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Family Business and Sustainable Development: Describing and Analyzing the Family Business Sustainability Posture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the predominant form of firm in the economy worldwide, so it is becoming increasingly important to understand the role they play in the green transition. It is urgent to understand how SMEs establish their goals that reorient their strategies and activities towards the creation of greater environmental value. From a stakeholder perspective, this study analyzes the environmental and social goals that create value in SMEs. We identify family influence as an important determinant for the establishment of environmental goals in SMEs that has not been sufficiently studied. We tested the hypotheses in a sample of 132 Spanish SMEs. Our findings indicate that setting social goals and having family characteristics have a direct positive effect on the environmental goals of SMEs. In addition, family influence positively moderates the effect of social goals, increasing its effect in the establishment of environmental goals for the creation of value in SMEs. This is due to the desire of family SMEs to increase their socio-emotional wealth and their transgenerational intention by incorporating the requirements of stakeholders. These findings highlight the importance of particularly considering the family characteristics of SMEs when analyzing the role that SMEs play in the green transition and should also be important for policy makers when designing environmental policies.

1. Introduction

Firms, as all parts of society, face great economic, social, and environmental challenges. The United Nations (UN) established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1] as a way to face these challenges. These SDGs were the result of collaboration between multiple stakeholders from more than 150 countries, including representatives of governments, business, and civil society [2,3]. Among the 17 main SDGs aimed at addressing the main global challenges are the fight against poverty and climate change, and the promotion of the sustainable use of terrestrial and marine natural resources, among others. It is particularly urgent that firms get involved in solving environmental problems, since they are responsible for many of them. The UN calls on companies to incorporate the fight against climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources into their goals. However, the establishment of these goals, and their management, seems more feasible in multinationals and large companies [4] rather than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), since SMEs lack the resources, experience, and incentives to implement sustainability in their daily management, although their potential contribution is large [2]. SMEs are predominant in the European economy. The EU estimates that more than 99% of European private companies are SMEs, representing more than two thirds of employment in the EU and 56.4% of value creation [5], showing this prevalence in similar proportions in all the EU countries. Although the individual environmental impacts of each SME are generally small, the cumulative environmental impact is considerable, and therefore SMEs are important for the environment and their impact must be taken into account. In fact, there are some studies that point to SMEs as being responsible for between 60% and 80% of CO2 emissions, pollution, commercial waste, and pollution incidents and, in addition, many of them only see environmental protection as a regulatory cost [6,7,8].
Other firms, however, are increasingly aware of their social and environmental responsibility, which in turn is valued by customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders [9,10,11]. Rather than being seen only as a cost, many companies choose to view these challenges as opportunities, providing a possible source of competitive advantage for their long-term sustainability [12,13]. However, as Jenkins [14] indicated, the application to SMEs of the idea of obtaining a competitive advantage from social and environmental activities is still in its infancy.
Previous research found that SMEs are less concerned with social and environmental issues [15,16,17]. The reason behind that statement is that SMEs have more limited resources and organizational structures, and are more focused on short term aims, and their survival. On the other hand, it has been argued that SMEs are more flexible, and more dependent on the requirements of their local communities, meaning that they would be willing to include social and environmental goals in their agenda [12,15,18,19]. Therefore, much more research is still needed on social and environmental issues in SMEs, especially in understanding how SMEs establish their environmental goals [14,20,21].
There are many factors that influence how SMEs establish their objectives, one of which is family influence [22,23,24,25]. The Spanish Family Business Institute estimates that more than 90% of SMEs have family characteristics [26]. This prevalence is also present in other economies [27,28,29]. Therefore, it is not possible to understand how SMEs establish their objectives without taking into account the role of family influence.
The number of studies on family business and how they establish their goals has increased significantly in recent years [30,31,32]. There is evidence that family businesses have a greater range of aims than non-family businesses [33], being guided by family influence and their transgenerational intention [34]. However, there is still a lack of investigation on how familial characteristics influence the setting of SME economic, social, and environmental goals [22,35,36,37,38].
Environmental goals have traditionally been investigated as part of social goals. However, many companies are shifting towards greener priorities, moving towards a green transition, reorienting their activities for greater environmental value creation [39,40,41,42].
The objective of this research, therefore, is to analyze the effect of family influence and social goals in the establishment of environmental goals in SMEs.
To fill this gap, drawing on both a stakeholder perspective [43,44] and a social-emotional wealth perspective (SEW) [34,45], we developed a series of hypotheses that connect the effect of social goals on environmental aims in SMEs and how they are determined by family influence.
We tested the hypotheses on a sample of 132 Spanish SMEs obtained from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) database [46,47] using partial least squares structural equation models (PLS-SEM). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project is one of the largest cross-sectional survey databases that measures entrepreneurial activity.
Our study contributes to previous research by demonstrating that family influence plays a determining role in how SMEs establish their environmental goals. Traditionally, studies on social and environmental goals focused on large firms; however, in recent years, more attention has been paid to SMEs, but the analysis of family influence has remained under-studied. Our research suggests that SMEs with higher levels of family influence incorporate a higher level of environmental goals into their agenda. Additionally, we find that the higher the level of family influence, the more open SMEs are to translate social goals and stakeholder requirements into environmental goals.
This is because SMEs with family characteristics try to increase their socio-emotional wealth by sharing a long-term vision and including the requirements of internal and external stakeholders. In this way, we respond to several calls to expand knowledge about sustainability in SMEs and family businesses [38]. These results are useful both for research and practice within firms, as well as for public decision-makers when designing their transition policies towards a more sustainable economy.
After this introductory section, Section 2 develops the conceptual framework and the proposed relationships. In Section 3, the materials and methods used in this investigation are identified. Finally, the results and a discussion of them, as well as our conclusions, are presented in the final sections, Section 4 and Section 5.

2. Conceptual Background and Hypotheses Development

Stakeholder theory [43] provides a suitable framework for understanding how companies create value by integrating stakeholder goals into the value creation goals of the companies [48]. In a broad sense, these stakeholders are all groups or individuals who can influence or be affected by the goals of the firm. Among the internal stakeholders are shareholders, managers and employees, and within external stakeholders we can find customers, suppliers, and the local community, that encompass the social and institutional framework within which companies carry out their business activities.
Following Hechavarria et al. [49], firms in the development of their business activities create value not only for shareholders as traditionally expected, but also for the different groups that make up the organization, stakeholders, society, and the environment [50]. These value creation objectives guide the strategic and practical actions of the firms.
In recent years, a line of research was developed that studies those business activities which provide not only economic value, but also social and environmental value [50]. Some firms, beyond complying with regulations and responding to pressure from stakeholders, see these goals as an opportunity to solve a social or environmental problem by creating value for their stakeholders, hoping to guarantee their long-term survival [12]. These firms incorporate these goals that guide their strategies and practices, guiding the organization to solve environmental and social problems.

2.1. Social and Environmental Goals

The creation of environmental value is obtained by refocusing the business activities through strategies, practices, and policies related to environmental sustainability, resource management, waste reduction, the circular economy, the fight against climate change, and the responsible use of natural resources, among others [51,52,53].
Buysse and Verbeke [54] found that the firms that follow a proactive environmental strategy are those that manage to better integrate the requirements of the stakeholders in their strategy, managing to create value for both stakeholders and shareholders, unlike companies that are reactive with environmental compliance. Sharma and Henriques [55] found that the change in sustainable activities undertaken by firms depends on the interests and resources shared with stakeholders. Delmas and Toffel [56] identified that external stakeholders are the ones that have higher influence on companies to integrate environmental management into their activities. Sarkis et al. [57] found direct influences of pressure from stakeholders on the adoption of environmental practices and others partially mediated by the firm′s capabilities. Shubham et al. [58] drew attention to the heterogeneity of the stakeholders, identifying direct and indirect influences of the different stakeholders. According to Shubham et al. [58], the main stakeholders act as mediators of the influence of the secondary ones in the adoption of environmental initiatives within the firms. Darnall et al. [59] found that environmental practices are less likely in SMEs than in large firms, but SMEs respond better to stakeholder requirements.
These practices do not have a direct impact in the short term. Since many of these environmental goals that guide environmental strategies, practices, and policies require large amounts of resources from firms, as well as the willingness to carry them out, their impact can only be observed in the medium or long term [60,61]. For firms, the natural environment is a potential actor that has to be integrated into the creation of customer value, with particular attention given to environmental value and social responsibilities [62,63].
Social value includes activities, practices, and policies that integrate social requirements; thus, employees, communities, and neighborhoods are of interest here. Concepts such as employee benefits, flexibility, work-life balance, diversity, and integration policies are of great importance to employees. The significance of philanthropy, community presence, and support for social initiatives for communities in which firms are present cannot be understated [64], resulting in raised corporate reputation, as well as being an indicator of firm permeability to the requirements and goals of stakeholders.
Hillman and Keim [65] concluded that carrying out social activities unrelated to the main stakeholders does not add value; however, if social activities are among the goals of the main stakeholders—such as employees, customers, suppliers, and communities—the generate greater value as they help to develop valuable intangible resources. Berman et al. [66] claimed that environmental concerns can be viewed positively by other stakeholders.
Several studies found a strong relationship between social and environmental goals, which are often integrated within a broad social responsibility that includes the environment [67,68].
Social sensitivity towards environmental issues has increased in recent years. Global initiatives such as the fight against climate change or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have created a stream of appreciation for such practices in society. It could be expected that firms that are more sensitive to the social requirements of stakeholders are also more likely to establish sustainability practices [63,69,70]. From these arguments, we can establish that:
Hypothesis 1.
Social goals have a direct and positive impact on the establishment of environmental goals in SMEs.

2.2. Family Influence and Environmental Goals

Family firms are especially rich in non-financial goals for stakeholder value creation [71]. Family firms are organizations where two systems coexist: the business system, and the family-owned and managed system, which is what characterizes this type of organization and contributes to its uniqueness [32]. Because of this, non-financial goals are more relevant in family firms than in non-family ones [33]. These goals will have a large effect on the strategic decisions and behaviors of family firms [72,73]. In recent years, the concept of socioemotional wealth has been developed, which is linked to socioemotional goals [74]. This concept reflects the importance of these goals in the behavior of family firms and encompasses dimensions such as identity and the commitment of family members, transgenerational intention, the role of employees, social prestige, and ties with the community [75,76,77]. The family is both shareholder and stakeholder. In fact, the family is the main stakeholder in the family firm [62,78,79]. The goals of the family are what determine the goals of the family firm. These goals are focused on creating value for the family and increasing its socioemotional wealth.
The three-circle model by Tagiuri and Davis [80] reflects the influence of the family and family ownership on the firm. The extent to which the family subsystem connects and overlaps with the business system will determine the degree to which the family is able to influence the firm [80]. Family influence measures the degree of heterogeneity by establishing a continuum where at the lower limit it would not be considered a family firm, and at the upper limit, it reflects considerable family influence in the establishment of the goals and the leadership of the firm.
In relation to environmental goals, family firms have a long-term horizon; they seek transgenerational sustainability and its continuity through subsequent generations, and therefore they will want to preserve and increase their socioemotional wealth [81,82]. Berrone et al. [83] emphasized that the desire to maintain family status can divert resources from economic to non-economic goals. From the stakeholder perspective, Berrone et al. [83] found that family firms exhibit better environmental performance than non-family firms. In the same way, Neubaum et al. [84] did not find a relationship between environmental and financial performance in family firms. Neubaum et al. [84] explained this result by indicating that family firms can adopt environmental practices, even sacrificing financial profitability, since the objective of increasing their socioemotional wealth prevails. By contrast, Cruz et al. [37] found no evidence that family firms adopted more social practices related to external stakeholders (environment and community) than non-family firms. Uhlaner et al. [85] only found a positive relationship between family influence and environmental management practices in SMEs when there are three or more family owners of the family business.
Environmentally sustainable policies and practices are goals with long-term returns. Since family firms do not have to deliver short-term results for shareholders, because they are characterized by patient capital and a long-term perspective, they can promote environmentally friendly policies better than non-family firms [83]. Family firms will be inclined to comply with environmental regulations, since the penalties are high and could jeopardize their continuity and damage the family′s prestige [83]. However, they may also be inclined to incorporate environmental goals as lines of future activity and attraction for the new generations of the family [38,86,87,88,89]. Dangelico et al. [82] highlighted that family firms recognize environmental innovation as a business opportunity, rather than simply a requirement to comply with legal regulations, which explains why they consider investments in environmental aspects as a source of competitive advantage.
This leads to the following hypothesis being proposed:
Hypothesis 2.
Family influence positively affects the establishment of environmental goals in SMEs.

2.3. Family Influence Acts as a Moderator of the Relationship between Social and Environmental Goals

The family presence in a firm is a differentiating element that is reflected in the background and the number of business goals, which tend to be greater in number and heterogeneity in family firms in comparison to non-family firms [32,33,80]. Although all firms have non-financial goals that generate value for stakeholders, family SMEs, those SMEs with the highest level of family influence, may be more sensitive to responding to stakeholder requirements, due to their proximity, flexibility, and informal mechanisms [15,18,90].
Family members can play a multitude of roles—shareholders, managers, CEOs, employees, or representatives of the local community—which gives them the opportunity to channel and meet the demands of other stakeholders [78]. Family firms are more sensitive to the establishment of social goals, as they are closely involved in the area and in their community [83,91,92]. The identity of the family firm is affected by the community of origin and is a reference to its territorial scope, with its practices being determined by the social prestige of the family in the community [38,79,87,89].
Rus-Rufino and Trevinyo-Rodríguez [93] highlighted the notion of the family firm as a social network, playing an integrating role between the family, the community, business groups, unions, and business associations. The interaction that the social network fosters between these different social groups is reflected in the influence of the family. Berrone et al. [83], from the stakeholder perspective, found that local roots had a positive and highly significant impact on environmental performance for family-controlled firms. Neubaum et al. [84] found a moderate relationship between attention to the social demands of stakeholders and environmental practices in family firms.
Some scholars, such as Déniz and Cabrera-Suárez [88], argued that family firms are heterogeneous and that there are families that may have nepotistic practices and characteristics that result in lower levels of commitment to stakeholders by putting family goals before any other [94]. By contrast, other studies provided arguments about how family firms care more about their stakeholders [77], and therefore they will adopt a more sustainable and environmental behavior in relation to the requirements of the stakeholders, especially with regard to roots, identity and family prestige in the community [38].
Dangelico et al. [82] also believed that family firms are more sensitive to the demands of their internal stakeholders [95] due to the contribution of the long-term planning of family firms, their intention to maintain socioemotional wealth, and organizational culture [31,32]. These internal stakeholders particularly include the founders, the dominant coalition—whose perception of environmental values affects the firm′s environmental strategy—and subsequent generations. Huang et al. [96] analyzed the influence of different types of stakeholders on the adoption of environmental innovations, highlighting that internal stakeholders in family firms play a principle role, while external stakeholders such as markets and regulation are more relevant to non-family firms [82]. In a same vein, Campopiano and De Massis [97] suggested that corporate social responsibility reports of family firms focus more on environmental aspects, more than non-family firms. These scholars attribute to family firms a greater concern for protecting their socioemotional wealth in the long term.
These arguments lead to a perception of family firms as more receptive to social demands, and in particular a greater willingness to place environmental goals at the center of their social agenda, which is why the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 3.
Family influence positively moderates the relationship between social and environmental goals in SMEs.
In Figure 1, the relationships formulated as hypotheses in the study are presented.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data

To test the proposed research model, this paper uses the Spanish database of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project [98]. The GEM project is one of the most important projects globally that measures entrepreneurial activity. It is based on the collection of cross-sectional data through telephone surveys. In the different annual waves, it pays attention to some particular characteristics. In 2009, data were collected on whether the business activity carried out incorporated environmental and social goals for the creation of value [46,47]. As a result of the exploitation of this database, findings were published that expanded the frontier of knowledge [49,52].
Particularly in the Spanish database, the role that the family played in entrepreneurial activity was incorporated [99]. However, as far as we know, we are the first to relate the two aspects.
As one of our aims is to study the effect of family influence on the establishment of goals in the SMEs, we used the subsample of consolidated firms (those with more than 42 months of activity), rejecting questionnaires that had not been answered by the owner or manager. We follow the definition of SMEs from the European Commission’s 2003/361/EC recommendation in relation to employees to select the size of the firms (11–250 employees) [100,101,102]. Following these criteria, the sample was established with 132 SMEs.

3.2. Variable Measurement

In this wave of the GEM database, a question was included related to the importance of environmental, social, and economic goals for the creation of value of the economic activity carried out [47,103]. The dependent variable of our study are the environmental goals of the firm. The questionnaire asked respondents to rate the importance of the creation of environmental value for the firm, such as recycling policies, special measures to avoid pollution, renewable energies, and other related aspects, with values between 0 and 100 points [52].
As independent and moderating variables, social goals and family influence were included. Social goals are represented by a percentage that reflects the importance of creating social value for the firm-such as policies that favor the community, integration policies, or regulatory compliance–with values between 0 and 100 points [104].
Similarly to Cruz and Justo [99], we used a characterization of family influence based on the existence of family members as shareholders and/or managers in the firm. From two binary indicators, a latent variable was constructed that indicates at its maximum value that there are relatives both in the ownership and in the management of the firm.
Variables that the literature considers to be related to corporate social responsibility and environmental and social goals were included as control variables, such as industry (classified into four categories-three dummy variables are introduced in the model), age and size of the firm, the rural or urban setting where the firm is located, and the educational level and gender of the CEO [22,23].

3.3. Statistical Procedure

Given the small sample size and that our objective is to identify the most significant factors for the establishment of environmental goals, we adopted an analysis of structural equations, specifically the PLS-SEM technique. This option was decided upon for several reasons: the nature of the research is exploratory and predictive, there are formative constructs and indicators that are latent variables, the sample is small, the data distribution is not normal, and the objective is to identify the importance of the family influence as precursor and moderator in goal setting.
The recommendations and evaluation guidelines of Hair et al. [105] and Sarstedt et al. [106] (the estimation was made by the normal PLS algorithm with 300 iterations and route maximization weighting system, resampling with 5000 groups, and finally blindfold with a distance of 7 were used). The model was tested using Smart-PLS version 3.8 [107].

3.4. Statistical Controls for Bias

Given the sample size and the data collection method, subsequent procedures were performed to control common bias [108], such as Harman′s single factor test, and a correlation analysis that assesses the discriminant validity of each of the constructs [109], and finally, a collinearity evaluation approach [110] was employed. No common bias was detected with any of these procedures.

4. Results

With structural equation models in general, and in particular in the case of PLS analysis, two main steps are followed to test the hypotheses: the evaluation of the measurement model, and subsequently, the evaluation of the structural model.

4.1. Evaluation of the Measurement Model

The objective at this stage is to validate the constructs of the subsequent stage—the evaluation of the structural model—and measure and represent precisely what is to be measured [111].
In the case of family influence (a reflective construct), internal reliability and convergent and discriminant validity were analyzed [112].
The convergent validity was fulfilled with the analysis of the reliability of the indicators, verifying that all external loads of the indicators reached values above 0.7 [113]. In this case, the value of family ownership and management indicators was placed at above 0.8. The value of the average variance extracted (AVE) was above the reference value (0.5), being 0.70 in the case of family influence. The internal consistency of family influence was analyzed using composite reliability, which clearly exceeded the value of 0.8 [113].
In the case of the other indicator variables introduced to the model, we verified that all their weights were significant and that there was an absence of multicollinearity. Checks were made as to whether there were significant levels of collinearity between each set of latent predictive variables and their relationships with their indicators. It was found that both the indicators and the constructs met the condition of a variance inflation factor of less than 5 (VIF < 5). The highest value present was 1.34, confirming the absence of multicollinearity, allowing for the continuation of our analysis.
To determine the discriminant validity of the constructs, the Fornell and Larcker [114] criterion was used, which indicates that discriminant validity is established if the indicators share more variance with their construct than with the rest of the constructions of the same model. The interpretation is that the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) of a construct itself must be greater than the correlations of the other constructs. Table 1 shows the cross-correlations.
Following Mackenzie et al. [115], who considered that a discriminant validity common to reflective and formative constructs can be determined, it was found that in all cases, the intercorrelation is less than 0.71, and so, applying the Fornell and Larcker criterion [114], the discriminant validity is established for all the constructs of the model. Additionally, the HTMT criterion was applied, which analyzes the heterotrait–monotrait correlation relationship [116]. All correlations presented values much lower than the limit of 0.9, meaning that the discriminant validity can also be established through this method.
In the next section, we estimate and evaluate the significance of the model at a structural level, detecting differences that may occur due to the moderating effect of family influence through an analysis of moderating effects.

4.2. Evaluation of the Structural Model

To analyze the quality of the structural model, we evaluated its predictive validity and the strength and importance of its relationships. For this, the determination coefficient R2 and the value of the Q2–Stone–Geisser criterion [117,118] were analyzed first. The value of R2 is 0.247, which is considered as a low to medium level of explanatory power, indicating that there are other important determinants that have not been included in the model that help to explain the establishment of environmental goals in SMEs. In the same sense, a positive Q2 value indicates that the relationships that precede the establishment of environmental goals are predictive in nature. The Stone–Geisser criterion of the cross-validation redundancy measures indicates that the higher the Q2, the greater the predictive power, and thus, the 0.247 level means that it is considered to have a low to medium level of predictive power. For the hypothesis tests, the sign and magnitude of relationships, the trajectory coefficients, and their values of statistical significance, p-value, obtained through the non-parametric bootstrapping calculation of 5000 cases, were evaluated, obtaining the total effects and the magnitude of effects.
Figure 2 shows the result of the estimation of the structural model with the trajectory coefficients of the PLS and the p-values for each relationship (R2 within the endogenous construct).
The first hypothesis established that social goals have a direct and positive impact on the establishment of environmental goals. The results confirm a strong positive effect (β = 0.361, t = 4.02, p < 0.000; f2 = 0.146) [119]. The relationship is significant and the importance of its effect can be considered as being at a medium level [120], thus the hypothesis can be accepted.
The second hypothesis established that family influence positively affects the establishment of environmental goals. The results confirm this positive effect (β = 0.188, t = 1.97, p < 0.049; f2 = 0.042) [121]. The relationship is significant and, although the importance of its effect can be considered small, it exceeds the reference value of 0.02 [120], meaning that the second hypothesis is also supported.
The third hypothesis proposed established that family influence positively moderates the effect of social goals in setting environmental goals. The results confirm this positive moderating effect (β = 0.266, t = 2.66 p < 0.008; f2 = 0.08) [121], and the relationship is significant. The importance of its effect can be considered moderate, and exceeds the reference value of 0.02 [120], and hence the third hypothesis can also be accepted.
Additionally, Figure 3 represents the moderating effect of family influence on the incidence of social goals in the establishment of environmental goals.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the higher the level of family influence is, the steeper the slope between social and environmental goals is. This implies that the higher the levels of social goals are, the higher the levels of environmental goals are too. In the case of SMEs with less family influence, although the relationship is also positive, the slope is flatter.

4.3. Model Fit

Henseler et al. [122,123] stated that in order to judge the quality of the model in PLS, one must look at the predictive capacity of the model, since in PLS, no proper adjustment value is offered. In this sense, they suggested the use of standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) can be a good alternative measure of the goodness of fit of the model; in this case, the value of the model is 0.039. The rule of interpretation, following Hu and Bentler [124], is that a value lower than 0.08 provides a good fit value to the model, with the model presenting a much lower value, which indicates a good fit.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Previous research found mixed results on whether stakeholder requirements favor the implementation of environmental goals [58]. The arguments against the implementation of environmental and social objectives in SMEs are that they lack the resources, experience, and incentives to implement sustainability in their daily management, they have less visibility, and are more focused on short-term objectives and their survival [2,4,16,125,126]. The arguments in favor can be summarized in that SMEs are more flexible, their decision making is more simplified, and that they are more dependent on the requirements of their local communities [15,18,19,59], which means that they can include social and environmental goals in their agenda [20]. Our findings confirm that SMEs respond to pressure from stakeholders by incorporating their social goals and that these social goals have a strong influence on setting environmental goals. The results show that the establishment of social goals has a direct and positive effect on the firm′s environmental goals.
Given the high prevalence of family firms, it is not possible to analyze SMEs without considering their family characteristics. Through the analysis of family influence, our findings show that family influence has a significant and positive effect on setting environmental goals.
This result enriches the discussion on whether or not family firms respond to pressure from stakeholders by adopting environmental goals that guide their environmental practices and performance. Previous evidence gave mixed results [37,83,84,85]. The findings help clarify this relationship. Particularly in the case of SMEs, rather than considering a specific definition of family firm, it is necessary to consider the degrees of family influence.
In addition, the moderating effect of family influence on the relationship of social goals with environmental goals has also been studied. The results show that the greater the degree of family influence, the greater the effect of social goals in the establishment of environmental goals.
This finding provides evidence of how family influence improves the relationship between social and environmental goals in SMEs. This confirms arguments, not sufficiently validated, about the nexus role played by the family and the family firm with the requirements of the interest groups [77,78,83], not confirming the vision of the family with nepotism practices, only focused on prioritizing family goals and without taking into account the requirements of other stakeholders [37,88].
These findings together provide evidence that family influence has a strong relationship in setting social and environmental goals in SMEs. These results are added to the discussion of the urgency and importance of how to incorporate the Sustainable Development Goals [127,128] in SMEs and on the role that SMEs [2,129] can play in solving environmental problems through their activities [41,42], creating both social and environmental value.
Our study sheds light on the role of family influence in setting environmental goals for value creation in SMEs, and demonstrates that family firms can be a force for change when implementing environmental sustainability measures [50]. There is verification that the stakeholder perspective provides a sound explanation of how family SMEs are permeable to the requirements of the family, the territory, and their communities [43], thus expanding on the findings of Anbarasan and Sushil [130] on the implementation of environmental goals in SMEs. Family SMEs are more inclined to consider environmental measures as an opportunity for the creation of long-term value with positive externalities for society [32,81,82], and because they meet the requirements of communities [79,87,89], increasing their effects on the establishment of environmental goals for the creation of value [39,40]. This is because family firms have a greater range of goals than non-family businesses [32,33], and are guided by family influence, their transgenerational intention, the identity and role of employees, social prestige, the importance of ties with the community [75,76,77], and their long-term orientation.
Previous studies on environmental goals were predominantly focused on large companies, and in the case of SMEs, they only included family characteristics as another factor, not as a determining variable in the study of the adoption of environmental goals for value creation.
The results presented put the family nature of SMEs at the center of the investigation when adopting environmental goals, due to their unique features such as long-term orientation [131], flexibility, concern for employees, family communication, and the trend towards stability. These traits of family firms foster the adoption of environmental goals for the creation of value in firms.
In terms of conclusions, we can state that SMEs are increasingly sensitive to the establishment of environmental sustainability goals, the main determinant being the permeability of the firm to the social demands of stakeholders, especially those of an internal nature derived from its family status.
Family influence has a direct effect on the establishment of environmental goals because of a desire to increase their socioemotional wealth [77], such as the objective of increasing the attractiveness of joining the firm to new generations and establishing long-term strategies [131] that allow the firm to continue its activity in the future. In this sense, the environmental concern of the family firms is due more to its long-term orientation [131] and the intention of passing on the legacy to future generations, than to regulatory pressures. As a result of the greater presence of the family firm in the territory and in communities [38], and its function as a social network that articulates the interaction between other social groups, family influence positively moderates the effect of social goals in the establishment of goals and environmental practices.
We believe that this study contributes to the body of research on setting social and environmental goals in small and medium-sized enterprises in several aspects: (1) we responded to the need to analyze the role of social and environmental responsibility in SMEs; (2) we expanded the study of sustainability goals in SMEs; (3) we also identified family influence as a key factor in the implementation of sustainable practices in SMEs, since environmental sustainability studies have not focused enough on their family characteristics; (4) we contributed to the knowledge on family firms by providing more evidence of the importance of non-economic goals; (5) we expanded the research on family firms by providing new evidence on the role of environmental sustainability, which is an issue that has not been given enough attention in previous research; and finally, (6) we provided evidence of the relationship between stakeholders and socioemotional wealth.
Like any other research, this study is not without limitations. The first limitation is to consider whether it is possible to obtain findings that can be useful for research and practice from a database with data collected in 2009. Although the business environment has changed in many ways, a review of the findings revealed that SMEs continue to face the same challenges as they did a decade ago. From this wave of the GEM database, findings have recently been obtained that have provide valuable insights [49,99]. To our knowledge, we are the first to obtain findings that relate family influence and environmental and social goals in SMEs. The interest of these findings makes it necessary to consider them for research and practice. Although it would be desirable to contrast these results with those of other current studies, the sample is small and belongs to a single country, which could limit its validity to a cultural area of influence. It would be interesting to expand the sample and extend it to various cultural contexts to verify that the relationships are maintained [132]. The sample data are cross-sectional, so the results of the model present strengths in terms of statistical association. The inference of the direction of the relationships is established from the conceptual framework. To analyze causality, the study could be extended to time series or case studies. The levels of variance explained are not high, which implies that there are other determinants that should be included in future research. Family influence was measured through two indicators that reflected the presence of family members within the entity and in the management of the SME. Although it has been a validated measure in previous studies, it would be interesting to include other measures of family influence, such as the Family Power, Culture and Experience Influence Scale (F-PEC) [133] or a socio-emotional wealth scale (SEW) [75,76]. Regarding corporate social responsibility measures in family SMEs and how social and environmental goals are established, it would be interesting to measure their effect on variables such as green innovation and other measures of firm results beyond traditional financial results.
Other lines of future research might include the analysis of how social and human capital [134] of family SMEs affect the establishment of environmental goals, or how relationships with external stakeholders [135] are important when it comes to creating a long-term sustainable competitive advantage in family SMEs. Another line of research could also be to consider a configurational approach in which environmental practices and types of family SMEs perform better [136,137].
As a final conclusion, we can state that family SMEs, those SMEs with the highest level of family influence, present a higher level of concern for both family and environmental sustainability. They are also more permeable to the social demands of their environment and the community. The family prestige, identity and its transgenerational vocation should be considered when designing political measures for environmental protection by political leaders, given the future challenges facing all sectors of society.

Author Contributions

A.R. and D.L. conceptualization; A.R. analyzed the data. Both authors wrote and reviewed every section of the paper and contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the Santander Family Business Chair at the University of Cádiz.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the reviewers for their feedback in improving this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Assembly, G. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Verboven, H.; Vanherck, L. Sustainability management of SMEs and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. UmweltWirtschaftsForum 2016, 24, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Williams, A.; Whiteman, G.; Parker, J.N. Backstage Interorganizational Collaboration: Corporate Endorsement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2019, 5, 367–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2018, 1, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission. Annual Report on European SMEs 2018/2019; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; ISBN 978-92-9202-641-7. [Google Scholar]
  6. King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Miller, K.; Neubauer, A.; Varma, A.; Willians, E. First Assessment of the Environmental Assistance Programme for SMEs (ECAP); DG Environmental and Climate Action; EU: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  8. Williamson, D.; Lynch-Wood, G.; Ramsay, J. Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Roberts, R.W. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Account. Organ. Soc. 1992, 17, 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Porter, M.; Kramer, M. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 79–92. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, B.; Winn, M.I. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jenkins, H. A ‘business opportunity’ model of corporate social responsibility for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2009, 18, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aragón, C.; Narvaiza, L.; Altuna, M. Why and How Does Social Responsibility Differ Among SMEs? A Social Capital Systemic Approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 138, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jenkins, H. A Critique of Conventional CSR Theory: An SME Perspective. J. Gen. Manag. 2004, 29, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Leonidou, L.C.; Christodoulides, P.; Thwaites, D. External Determinants and Financial Outcomes of an Eco-friendly Orientation in Smaller Manufacturing Firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2016, 54, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fassin, Y. SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2008, 17, 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vives, A. Social and Environmental Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises in Latin America. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2006, 21, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Arend, R.J. Social and Environmental Performance at SMEs: Considering Motivations, Capabilities, and Instrumentalism. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 541–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Williams, S.; Schaefer, A. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Sustainability: Managers’ Values and Engagement with Environmental and Climate Change Issues. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2013, 22, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Herrera Madueño, J.; Larrán Jorge, M.; Lechuga Sancho, M.P.; Martínez- Martínez, D. Motivaciones hacia la Responsabilidad Social en las PYMEs familiares. Rev. Empres. Fam. J. Fam. Bus. 2014, 4, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Herrera Madueño, J.; Larrán Jorge, M.; Lechuga Sancho, M.P.; Martínez-Martínez, D. Responsabilidad social en las pymes: Análisis exploratorio de factores explicativos. Rev. Contab. 2016, 19, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. López-Pérez, M.; Melero-Polo, I.; Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; Cambra-Fierro, J. Sustainability and Business Outcomes in the Context of SMEs: Comparing Family Firms vs. Non-Family Firms. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Kallmuenzer, A.; Nikolakis, W.; Peters, M.; Zanon, J. Trade-offs between dimensions of sustainability: Exploratory evidence from family firms in rural tourism regions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1204–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. IEF. Red de Cátedras de Empresa Familiar La Empresa Familiar en España (2015); Instituto de la Empresa Familiar: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; ISBN 978-84-608-2119-9. Available online: https://www.iefamiliar.com/publicaciones/la-empresa-familiar-en-espana-2015/ (accessed on 9 November 2020).
  27. Astrachan, J.H.; Shanker, M.C. Family businesses’ contribution to the US economy: A closer look. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2003, 16, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Pistrui, D.; Welsch, H.; Roberts, J. The Emergence of Family Businesses in the Transforming Soviet Bloc: Family Contributions to Entrepreneurship Development in Romania. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1997, 10, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Anderson, R.C.; Reeb, D.M. Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. J. Financ. 2003, 58, 1301–1327. [Google Scholar]
  30. Williams, R.I.; Pieper, T.M.; Kellermanns, F.W.; Astrachan, J.H. Family Firm Goals and their Effects on Strategy, Family and Organization Behavior: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, S63–S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kotlar, J.; De Massis, A. Goal Setting in Family Firms: Goal Diversity, Social Interactions, and Collective Commitment to Family-Centered Goals. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2013, 37, 1263–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Basco, R. “Where do you want to take your family firm?” A theoretical and empirical exploratory study of family business goals. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2017, 20, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Chrisman, J.J.; Chua, J.H.; Pearson, A.W.; Barnett, T. Family Involvement, Family Influence, and Family-Centered Non-Economic Goals in Small Firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 267–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gomez-Mejia, L.R.; Cruz, C.; Berrone, P.; de Castro, J. The Bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 653–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hernández-Perlines, F.; Rung-Hoch, N. Sustainable entrepreneurial orientation in family firms. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hernández-Perlines, F.; Cisneros, M.A.I. The role of environment in sustainable entrepreneurial orientation. The case of family firms. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Cruz, C.; Larraza-Kintana, M.; Garcés-Galdeano, L.; Berrone, P. Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 1295–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Le Breton-Miller, I.; Miller, D. Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2016, 7, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Payne, D.M.; Raiborn, C.A. Sustainable Development: The Ethics Support the Economics. J. Bus. Ethics 2001, 32, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dixon, S.E.A.; Clifford, A. Ecopreneurship—A new approach to managing the triple bottom line. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2007, 20, 326–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Núñez-Cacho, P.; Molina-Moreno, V.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A.; Cortés-García, F.J. Family Businesses Transitioning to a Circular Economy Model: The Case of “Mercadona”. Sustainability 2018, 10, 538. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fonseca, L.; Domingues, J.; Pereira, M.; Martins, F.; Zimon, D. Assessment of Circular Economy within Portuguese Organizations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780521151740. [Google Scholar]
  44. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Gómez-Mejía, L.L.R.L.; Haynes, K.T.; Núñez-Nickel, M.; Jacobson, K.J.L.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 106–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Terjesen, S.; Lepoutre, J.; Justo, R.; Bosma, N. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Report on Social Entrepreneurship. Executive Summary; Global Entrepreneurship Research Association: London, UK, 2012; Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=48437 (accessed on 10 November 2020).
  47. Lepoutre, J.; Justo, R.; Terjesen, S.; Bosma, N. Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40, 693–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Edward Freeman, R. Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 96, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hechavarría, D.M.; Terjesen, S.A.; Ingram, A.E.; Renko, M.; Justo, R.; Elam, A. Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 48, 225–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Elkington, J. Enter the Triple Bottom Line. In The Triple Bottom Line Does It All Add Up; Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–26. ISBN 9781844070152. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sáez-Martínez, F.; Díaz-García, C.; González-Moreno, Á. Factors Promoting Environmental Responsibility in European SMEs: The Effect on Performance. Sustainability 2016, 8, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hechavarría, D.M. Mother nature’s son? The impact of gender socialization and culture on environmental venturing. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 2016, 8, 137–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cohen, B.; Smith, B.; Mitchell, R. Toward a sustainable conceptualization of dependent variables in entrepreneurship research. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2008, 17, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Buysse, K.; Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Delmas, M.; Toffel, M.W. Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2004, 13, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez-Torre, P.; Adenso-Diaz, B. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Charan, P.; Murty, L.S. Secondary stakeholder pressures and organizational adoption of sustainable operations practices: The mediating role of primary stakeholders. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 910–923. [Google Scholar]
  59. Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1072–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Masurel, E. Why SMEs invest in environmental measures: Sustainability evidence from small and medium-sized printing firms. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2007, 16, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Perrini, F.; Tencati, A. Sustainability and stakeholder management: The need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2006, 15, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gibson, K. Stakeholders and Sustainability: An Evolving Theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 109, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lee, K.-H.; Herold, D.M.; Yu, A.-L. Small and Medium Enterprises and Corporate Social Responsibility Practice: A Swedish Perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Berman, S.L.; Wicks, A.C.; Kotha, S.; Jones, T.M. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 488–506. [Google Scholar]
  67. Baughn, C.C.; Bodie, N.L.; McIntosh, J.C. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. DiSegni, D.M.; Huly, M.; Akron, S. Corporate social responsibility, environmental leadership and financial performance. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lampikoski, T.; Westerlund, M.; Rajala, R.; Möller, K. Green Innovation Games: Value-Creation Strategies for Corporate Sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2014, 57, 88–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Johnson, M.P.; Schaltegger, S. Two Decades of Sustainability Management Tools for SMEs: How Far Have We Come? J. Small Bus. Manag. 2016, 54, 481–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chua, J.H.; Chrisman, J.J.; De Massis, A.; Wang, H. Reflections on family firm goals and the assessment of performance. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2018, 9, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Kotlar, J.; Fang, H.; De Massis, A.; Frattini, F. Profitability Goals, Control Goals, and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 1128–1145. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sciascia, S.; Nordqvist, M.; Mazzola, P.; De Massis, A. Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small- and Medium-Sized Firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 349–360. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cabrera-Suárez, M.K. La influencia de la familia en la empresa familiar: Objetivos socioemocionales, stewardship y familiness. Rev. Empres. Fam. 2012, 2, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Martínez Romero, M.J.; Rojo Ramírez, A.A. SEW: Looking for a definition and controversial issues. Eur. J. Fam. Bus. 2016, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Debicki, B.J.; Kellermanns, F.W.; Chrisman, J.J.; Pearson, A.W.; Spencer, B.A. Development of a socioemotional wealth importance (SEWi) scale for family firm research. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2016, 7, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cennamo, C.; Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Socioemotional Wealth and Proactive Stakeholder Engagement: Why Family-Controlled Firms Care More About Their Stakeholders. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 1153–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zellweger, T.M.; Nason, R.S. A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2008, 21, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bingham, J.B.; Gibb Dyer, W.; Smith, I.; Adams, G.L. A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 99, 565–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tagiuri, R.; Davis, J.A. On the goals of successful family companies. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1992, 5, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Classen, N.; Carree, M.; van Gils, A.; Peters, B. Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: An exploratory analysis. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 42, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dangelico, R.M.; Nastasi, A.; Pisa, S. A comparison of family and nonfamily small firms in their approach to green innovation: A study of Italian companies in the agri-food industry. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 1434–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R.; Larraza-Kintana, M. Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less? Adm. Sci. Q. 2010, 55, 82–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Neubaum, D.O.; Dibrell, C.; Craig, J.B. Balancing natural environmental concerns of internal and external stakeholders in family and non-family businesses. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2012, 3, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Uhlaner, L.M.; Berent-Braun, M.M.; Jeurissen, R.J.M.; de Wit, G. Beyond Size: Predicting Engagement in Environmental Management Practices of Dutch SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 109, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aragón-Amonarriz, C.; Arredondo, A.M.; Iturrioz-Landart, C. How Can Responsible Family Ownership be Sustained Across Generations? A Family Social Capital Approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 159, 161–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Uhlaner, L.M.; van Goor-Balk, H.A.; Masurel, E. Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2004, 11, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Deniz, M.C.; Cabrera-Suarez, M.K. Corporate Social Responsibility and Family Business in Spain. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 56, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Esparza Aguilar, J.L. Corporate social responsibility practices developed by Mexican family and non-family businesses. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2019, 9, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Herrera Madueño, J.; Larrán Jorge, M.; Lechuga Sancho, M.P.; Martínez-Martínez, D. Evolución de la literatura sobre la responsabilidad social en pymes como disciplina científica. Rev. Eur. Dir. y Econ. la Empres. 2015, 24, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Marques, P.; Presas, P.; Simon, A. The Heterogeneity of Family Firms in CSR Engagement. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014, 27, 206–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Van Gils, A.; Dibrell, C.; Neubaum, D.O.; Craig, J.B. Social Issues in the Family Enterprise. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014, 27, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Rus Rufino, S.; Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R.N. Hay que redefinir la empresa familiar. In Empresa Familiar: Análisis Estratégico; Corona, J., Ed.; Ediciones Deusto: Barcelona, Spain, 2017; pp. 89–117. ISBN 9788423427499. [Google Scholar]
  94. Dyer, G.W.; Whetten, D.A. Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S & P 500. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 785–802. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sharma, P.; Sharma, S. Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy. Bus. Ethics Q. 2011, 21, 309–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Huang, Y.C.; Ding, H.B.; Kao, M.R. Salient stakeholder voices: Family business and green innovation adoption. J. Manag. Organ. 2009, 15, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Campopiano, G.; De Massis, A. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Content Analysis in Family and Non-family Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 129, 511–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reynolds, P.; Bygrave, W.; Autio, E. GEM 2003 Global Report; Babson College: Babson Park, MA, USA, 2004; Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2003-global-report (accessed on 10 November 2020).
  99. Cruz, C.; Justo, R. Portfolio Entrepreneurship as a Mixed Gamble: A Winning Bet for Family Entrepreneurs in SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 571–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ruiz-Palomo, D.; Diéguez-Soto, J.; Duréndez, A.; Santos, J.A.C. Family Management and Firm Performance in Family SMEs: The Mediating Roles of Management Control Systems and Technological Innovation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. European Commission. User Guide to the SME Definition; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2005; ISBN 978-92-79-45322-9. [Google Scholar]
  102. EU Commission. Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Off. J. 2003, 20, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  103. Griffiths, M.D.; Gundry, L.K.; Kickul, J.R. The socio-political, economic, and cultural determinants of social entrepreneurship activity. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2013, 20, 341–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hechavarría, D.M. The impact of culture on national prevalence rates of social and commercial entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2015, 12, 1025–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Smith, D.; Reams, R.; Hair, J.F. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2014, 5, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ringle, C.; Wende, S.; Becker, J. Smart PLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  108. Podsakoff, P.M.P.; MacKenzie, S.B.S.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Bagozzi, R.; Yi, Y. Assessing Construct Validity in Organization Research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 421–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kock, N. Common Method Bias: A Full Collinearity Assessment Method for PLS-SEM. In Partial Least Squares Path Modeling; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 245–257. [Google Scholar]
  111. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sarstedt, M.; Mooi, E. A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  113. Hair, J.F.J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; ISBN 1483321452. [Google Scholar]
  114. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Jarvis, C.B. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 710–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1974, 36, 111–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Geisser, S. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 9780805826777. [Google Scholar]
  120. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Laurence Erlbaum Associates: Hove, UK; London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  121. Falk, R.; Miller, N. A Primer for Soft Modeling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992; ISBN 9780962262845. [Google Scholar]
  122. Henseler, J.; Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput. Stat. 2012, 28, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Ronkko and Evermann (2013). Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Hu, L.; Bentler, P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Hoogendoorn, B.; Guerra, D.; van der Zwan, P. What drives environmental practices of SMEs? Small Bus. Econ. 2015, 44, 759–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Lepoutre, J.; Heene, A. Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Vanham, D.; Leip, A.; Galli, A.; Kastner, T.; Bruckner, M.; Uwizeye, A.; van Dijk, K.; Ercin, E.; Dalin, C.; Brandão, M.; et al. Environmental footprint family to address local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 693, 133642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zimon, D.; Tyan, J.; Sroufe, R. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with un sustainable development goals. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2020, 14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Anbarasan, P. Sushil Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Enterprise: Evolving a Conceptual Framework, and a Case Study of ITC. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 282–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Memili, E.; Fang, H.C.; Koc, B.; Yildirim-Öktem, Ö.; Sonmez, S. Sustainability practices of family firms: The interplay between family ownership and long-term orientation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  133. Astrachan, J.H.; Klein, S.B.; Smyrnios, K.X. The F-PEC Scale of Family Influence: A Proposal for Solving the Family Business Definition Problem. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2002, 15, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Garrigos-Simon, F.; Botella-Carrubi, M.; Gonzalez-Cruz, T. Social Capital, Human Capital, and Sustainability: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Kraus, S.; Burtscher, J.; Vallaster, C.; Angerer, M. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Orientation: A Reflection on Status-Quo Research on Factors Facilitating Responsible Managerial Practices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Kraus, S.; Kallmuenzer, A.; Stieger, D.; Peters, M.; Calabrò, A. Entrepreneurial paths to family firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 88, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. González-Cruz, T.F.; Cruz-Ros, S. When does family involvement produce superior performance in SME family business? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1452–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 01998 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Sustainability 13 01998 g001
Sustainability 13 01998 g002 550
Figure 2. Estimated research model.
Figure 2. Estimated research model.
Sustainability 13 01998 g002
Sustainability 13 01998 g003 550
Figure 3. Analysis of the moderating effects of the influence of the family member.
Figure 3. Analysis of the moderating effects of the influence of the family member.
Sustainability 13 01998 g003
Table
Table 1. Fornell–Larcker criterion, discriminant validity, and constructs correlations.
Table 1. Fornell–Larcker criterion, discriminant validity, and constructs correlations.
1234567891011
1Age of firm(I)
2Education level of CEO0.04(I)
3Gender of CEO−0.14−0.10(I)
4Family influence0.040.040.180.84
5Family influence x
Social goals		0.080.03−0.050.01(I)
6Environmental goals0.02−0.150.090.190.18(I)
7Social goals−0.12−0.02−0.18−0.05−0.150.24(I)
8Rural−0.040.110.020.020.100.02−0.13(I)
9Sector 10.19−0.14−0.100.200.180.11−0.080.21(I)
10Sector 20.090.130.12−0.13−0.170.090.00−0.00−0.24(I)
11Sector 3−0.07−0.080.080.06−0.030.06−0.13−0.05−0.11−0.24(I)
12Firm size0.210.07−0.05−0.07−0.06−0.060.180.08−0.100.070.01
Square root of AVE. Correlations between constructs. (I) Indicator.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rojas, A.; Lorenzo, D. Environmental and Social Goals in Spanish SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Family Influence. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041998

AMA Style

Rojas A, Lorenzo D. Environmental and Social Goals in Spanish SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Family Influence. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041998

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rojas, Alvaro, and Daniel Lorenzo. 2021. "Environmental and Social Goals in Spanish SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Family Influence" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041998

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop